Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2579 of 2019 Applicant :- Ranjeet Yadav Opposite Party :- Smt. Kamini Ratan Chauhan, Director General , Stamp Registration And Stamp Shulk Counsel for Applicant :- Sukhendra Bahadur Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Present contempt application has been filed against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the orders dated 12.04.2017 and 01.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.31769 of 2014 (Ranjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.). For ready reference the orders dated 01.07.2014 and 12.04.2017 are quoted as under:-
"01.07.2014
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of registry clerk in the office of respondent no.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed an application for being given appointment on the post of registry clerk in the office of respondent no.2 and the said application is pending since the year 2006. It is further contended that Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor had recommended for the application of the petitioner being considered in accordance with law, but in spite of it, no decision has been taken.
There is no assertion in the writ petition that any vacancy was notified or that the petitioner had applied for appointment pursuant to some advertisement. It is also not clear that if there is any substantive vacancy though it is contended that number of new posts have been sanctioned, which have not been filled so far.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be issued. In case, any application is invited for holding selection for the post in question, it shall also be open to the petitioner to apply thereunder and in which case, his candidature shall also be considered in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
**********
"12.04.2017
Re: Civil Misc. Modification Application No.56504 of 2017 The writ petition was disposed on 1 July 2014 by the following order :- "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of registry clerk in the office of respondent no.2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed an application for being given appointment on the post of registry clerk in the office of respondent no.2 and the said application is pending since the year 2006. It is further contended that Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor had recommended for the application of the petitioner being considered in accordance with law, but in spite of it, no decision has been taken.
There is no assertion in the writ petition that any vacancy was notified or that the petitioner had applied for appointment pursuant to some advertisement. It is also not clear that if there is any substantive vacancy though it is contended that number of new posts have been sanctioned, which have not been filled so far.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no mandamus, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be issued. In case, any application is invited for holding selection for the post in question, it shall also be open to the petitioner to apply thereunder and in which case, his candidature shall also be considered in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of."
Now by means of instant application, the petitioner is seeking modification of the order dated 1 July 2014 by directing the respondent no.2 to decide the claim of the petitioner within a specified time.
In the opinion of the Court, the application is wholly misconceived in as much as the only observation made by this Court while disposing of the writ petition was that in case any application is invited for holding selection for the post in question it shall be open to the petitioner to apply thereunder. There was no direction by this Court to decide the claim of the petitioner.
The application is accordingly rejected."
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as both the aforesaid orders and find that no contempt is made out against the opposite party under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Moreover the present contempt application has been filed with delay and laches.
Consequently, the contempt application is rejected on the ground of limitation.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 SP/