ORDER Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant, the standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 21-2-2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 8062 of 1994 Shobha Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and another,
3. It is submitted that the opposite parties have not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment although copy of the order was served on 10-3-2000 and 6-5-2000.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-7-1942. He has completed 60 years of age on 1-7-2001. An advertisement for appointment of Assistant Teacher was published by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi on 31-12-1991. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. It is alleged that his application was rejected by the District. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi on the ground of over age by counting 1st July, 1942 and 1st July 1992 both dated inclusive for this purpose. The eligibility of a candidate to be appointed was between 18 to 50 years. The result was declared by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi in which the candidates who passed B. T. C. in 1978 were selected for appointment but the petitioner was not selected while he has passed B. T. C. in the year 1964.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari he has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25619 of 1993 which was disposed of vide Judgment and order dated 9-7-1993 directing the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before him.
6. It is alleged that in compliance of the order and judgment dated 9-7-1993 the petitioner filed a certified copy of the order dated 9-7-1993 along with representation before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi which was decided by him vide order dated 5-11-1993 holding that the petitioner had moved representation with much delay. The relevant portion of the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is as under :
(Vernacular matter omitted ........... Ed.)
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 5-11-1993 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8062 of 1994. By order and judgment dated 21-2-2000 order dated 5-11-1993 was quashed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. The order and judgment dated 21-2-2000 is as under :
"This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 5-11-1993 by which the petitioner's appointment was refused holding the petitioner to be over age.
The date of birth of the petitioner is 1-7-1942 and the eligibility of a candidate to be appointed is between 18 to 50 years, The Basic Shiksha Adhkari has rejected the application of the petitioner counting 1st July of 1942 as well as 1st July of 1992 and adding in the age of the petitioner and has held that the petitioner is over age by one day.
It has been settled by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1986 UPLBEC 632 : (1986 All LJ 1456), Yadunath Pandey v. The District Panchyat Raj Officer, Ballia that two terminal date shall be excluded while computing the age for the purpose of computing eligibility of a person.
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court the impugned order dated 5-11-1993, contained in annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi is quashed. The petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as if he was a candidate of 1992 within age.
Sd. P.C. Verma, J.
21-2-2000"
8. It is alleged that the order and judgment dated 21-2-2000 passed by this Court along with application was served on the respondents by registered post on 10 (sic) 2000.
9. In the meantime a new District Sant Ravidas Nagar was formed by carving out a portion of District Varanasi. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the case of the petitioner for appointment is pending since 2000. It is further submitted that on 6-5-2000 the petitioner again sent a reminder along with copy of the order dated 21-2-2000 by registered post to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sant Ravidas Nagar but his grievance regarding appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has not been considered. It is further alleged that the respondents are not paying any heed to his request and are keeping the matter pending deliberately and the respondents have deliberately and knowingly flouted the order dated 21 -2-2000 of this Court.
10. The standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the newly impleaded District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Sant Ravidas Nagar was not a party to the petition. He has been later on impleaded in this contempt application. He submits that petitioner Shobha Ram has passed the B. T. C. examinations from Madhya Pradesh in the year 1964 and his date of birth is 1st July, 1942. It is further submitted that against the advertisement the candidate's age on 1st July 1992 must not be exceeded 50 years but the matter is very old and the present deponent was not qualified for, service at the relevant time, It is further submitted that the petitioner at present is more than 58 years of age and this Court while passing the order in writ petition No. 8062 of 1994 without looking into these factual aspect has passed an order on 21st of February, 2000 ex parte while quashing the order dated 6th November, 1993 by which the petitioner's appointment was refused, Though it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner as per Rule 8 does not possess the minimum required qualifications therefore, his candidature was not only rejected on the ground of over age but also he did not possess the requisite qualification of the training. He misled the Court that he is qualified B. T. C. degree holder whereas the petitioner has passed a Buniyadi Shikshak Parikshak Praman Patra (PGBT, Jabalpur) which was recognized as equivalent to B. T. C. of State of U.P. vide G. O. dated 16-3-1986 and has been de-recognized and lastly the petitioner's matter relates to District Sant Ravidas Nagar, therefore, the deponent has forwarded his application before the said District Education Officer. He further submits that the petitioner has not passed BTC examination from State of U.P. or even from M.P. and that all the vacancies as per advertisement dated 31st December, 1991 had been filled up within one year and there is no vacancy left against which the petitioner can be considered.
11. From the record it is clear that the petitioner was about 58 years of age at the time of judgment dated 21-2-2000. It is also apparent from the record that the district Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sant, Ravidas Nagar was served with the impugned order on 6-5-2000 and he was not made a party in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner is not a holder of BTC degree and also does not possess any degree equivalent to B. T. C. from U. P. as per Rule 8 of the Basic Education Act, 1972. From the order dated 5-11-1993 it is apparent that both the dates i.e. 1st July, 1942 and 1st July, 1992 were not included and the petitioner had obtained the order dated 21-1-2000 by misrepresentation. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to reason or justice that in the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent be punished for contempt as the petitioner was about 58 years of age at the time of judgment dated 21-2-2000. His case was placed before the Selection Committee and it was found that the petitioner was over age of one day having completed the age on 30-6-1992. It is not a fit case for punishment in contempt in exercise of power under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. No case for contempt is made out.
12. The contempt petition is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.