Court No. – 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. – 294 of 2019
Applicant :- Diwakar Singh
Opposite Party :- Divya Kant Shukla
Counsel for Applicant :- Man Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- K. Shahi,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
In the present matter, the Court on 7.8.2019 has proceeded to pass a detailed order to the following effect.
“Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Man Bahadur Singh for the applicant and Shri Shailendra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K. Shahi, appearing for the opposite parties.
Present contempt application has been preferred to initiate proceeding under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act against the opposite parties and punish them for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ A No.22128 of 2018 (Sanjai Kumar and 15 others vs. State of UP and 2 others) wherein the Court directed as under:-
“Court is also not impressed by the argument of Sri P.N. Saxena that a fresh exercise has been got conducted by the Board to ascertain the vacancy for recruitment to the post of teacher in Hindi. At this stage when the examinations have already been got conducted and only a select is to be prepared by the commission, at its own level, it would not be justified in revising the vacancy by calling upon the District Inspector of Schools to submit a fresh report. In case this is allowed to happen the process itself would be rendered unworkable, inasmuch as the recruitment itself would not be concluded for various reasons, including subsequent reports which may contradict the earlier vacancy position already notified to the Board. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that the Board is under an obligation to draw a select panel against the advertised vacancy, which could be larger than the total number of vacancies already advertised subject to a maximum of 25% over and above it. A mandamus accordingly is issued to the Board to draw a revised select panel in accordance with Rule 12(8), with in a period of 4 weeks’ from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. The concern of the Board otherwise stands protected inasmuch as the appointment to selected candidates would be restricted to the actual number of posts which are available for being filled up and mere drawing of select panel would not pose any difficulty. The Board is also expected to act further in accordance with law for the purposes of filling of existing vacancies.
The writ petition stands disposed off, accordingly.”
Initially, an affidavit on behalf of Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allenganj, Allahabad (in short, the Board) was filed on 15.2.2019 indicating therein that as per aforesaid judgement and order dated 26.11.2018, two directions were issued, firstly to draw a revised select panel in accordance with Rule 12 (8) of the Rules of 1998 and secondly, to act in accordance with law for the purpose of filling up the existing vacancies. In compliance of the aforesaid judgement the Board had drawn a revised select panel in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 12 (8) and the same was published on 29.1.2019, corrected on 11.2.2019. It is claimed that so far as the first part of the judgement is concerned, the same has been complied with.
It has been apprised on behalf of the applicants that it is obligatory upon the Board to proceed to fill up the existing vacancies in accordance with sub-rules (10) and (11) of Rule 12 of U.P. Secondary Service Selection Board Rules, 1998. So far as the second part of the judgement is concerned, the same has not been complied with, inspite of the revised select panel, which has been drawn and published on 29.1.2019, corrected on 11.2.2019 and in absence of allocation of the institutions, the selected candidates/incumbents could not be given appointment letters.
At present, the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to 25% additional select panel which has been given by the Board and the power to allocate the institutions to the selected candidates is vested to the Board or District Inspector of Schools concerned. For all practical purpose, inspite of the revised 25% additional select panel, the appointment letters in favour of incumbents could not be ensured and as such, they are unable to join to the institutions.
In such situation, the Court is of the opinion that such issues can very well be resolved by the Secretary of the department concerned in consultation with the Chairman of the Board and apprise correct facts so that the applicants can join the institutions.
It has also been informed that the matter is already engaging attention of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.354 of 2019 (U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board vs. State of UP and 17 others) and the judgement is reserved. The outcome of the same may also be apprised by the parties on the next date fixed in the matter.
The impleadment applications have been filed in the connected matters to implead Ms. Kirti Gautam, Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allenganj, Allahabad as opposite party no.3 and Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow as opposite party no.4.
Let a copy of the contempt application be served upon Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to enable him to seek instructions from the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. Lucknow with due consultation of the Chairman, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allenganj, Allahabad and apprise the same on the next date fixed.
Put up this matter on 28.8.2019 in additional cause list alongwith all connected matters. ”
In response to the aforementioned order, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed the instruction dated 21.10.2019 sent by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. and relying upon para 4 of the instruction, it has been claimed that now it is incumbent upon the Board to proceed in the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Writ Court and the notice may be discharged against the State-respondents.
Today, when the matter is taken up, it has been apprised that the Special Appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 and the said order has also been placed before the Court. In such situation, the Court is of the opinion that there is no other impediment not to comply with the order of Writ Court
Confronted with this situation, Sri Shahi, learned counsel for the Board submits that every sincere efforts would be made by the Board to comply with the order of Writ Court in case some reasonable time is accorded by the Court.
List this matter on 27.11.2019 in the top 10 of the cases along with connected matter. Needless to say, the order of Writ Court must be complied with by the next date fixed, failing which, the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 shall remain present before the Court and the Court would also proceed against the Chairman of the Board on the said date.
Order Date :- 23.10.2019
A.K.Srivastava