High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanjai Kumar Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 11345 of 2005  RD-AH 898 (24 September 2004)
Civil Misc.Recall Application No. 113455 of 2004
Civil Misc.Contempt Application No.2802 of 1998
Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. Sri Brahma Pal Singh Verma, Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Etawah and others.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The review/recall application has been filed on the ground that the letter dated 2.4.97 of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh (Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit ) has not been considered while passing the order dated 25.8.2003 in the contempt application.
The petitioner has come up with the prayer in contempt petition that the judgment dated 8.12.97 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39991 of 1997, Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari,Etawah and another has not been complied with by the respondents. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 that if any selection process is going on and due applications have been made by the petitioners therefore, their case may also be considered in view of the Government Order dated 26.3.86 in accordance with law. It was further provided that if the present selection process is already over as claimed by the respondents, the petitioners' candidature must be considered in the next selection process.
The case of the petitioners in the contempt application is that the copy of the order dated 8.12.97 passed in the aforesaid writ petition was served on the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah and Chairman, Selection Committee on 10.12.87 for the purpose of selection. It is averred that after receipt of the order dated 8.12.97 passed by this Court by the authorities concerned, the petitioners were directed to appear on 29.12.97 before the Selection Committee at Vikas Bhavan, Etawah along with all the original certificates of their educational qualifications .
It is evident from the averments made in the contempt application that in the mean time W.P. No. 29275 of 1997 was decided by the High Court holding that it is not binding upon the authorities in the State of U.P. to appoint candidates, who had obtained training from out side the State. Hence, the order dated 10.3.98 was passed informing the petitioners about this fact. It is, therefore, wholly incorrect to say that the petitioners' case was not considered. They were directed to appear before the Selection Committee and interview was held in which they were found unfit. There was no deliberate action on the part of the authorities concerned.
In fact from perusal of the application it is evident that vide judgment dated 8.12.97 the petitioners were required to be considered but they moved application misrepresenting that the Court had directed them to be appointed. In the judgment dated 25.8.2003 in Civil Contempt Application No. 1900 of 2003 also, by which this case is covered, the question whether ''Buniyadi Prashikashan Praman Patra' is recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. or not, has been dealt with in paragraphs 8 and 29 of the judgment. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment in Contempt Petition No. 1900 of 2003 that ''Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra' is not recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. training course.
Annexure-CA-3 to the counter affidavit filed by Sri J.P. Rajpoot, who has been impleaded as respondent no.6 to the contempt application, also shows that ''Buniyadi Prashikshan Praman Patra' ( correspondence course ) issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government has not been recognized as equivalent to B.T.C. certificate issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh after 11.8.87 and as such, the petitioners do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for appointment.
The counsel for the petitioners states that the judgment in W.P. No. 29275 of 1997 was over-ruled vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2000 in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2000, Upendra Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others. Be that as it may, when the authority had taken decision in the matter the aforesaid judgment was not overruled and was in force. The decision of the authority dated 5.2.2003 was in accordance with law as it then was. There is no deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court, as such no case for contempt is made out.
In this view of the matter, no ground for recall/review of the order dated 25.8.2003 is made out. The recall/review application is accordingly, rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.