Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURYABALI AND OTHERS versus SHRI AMRIT ABHIJAT, DISTRICT MAGISTATE , ALLAHABAD AND ANR.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suryabali And Others v. Shri Amrit Abhijat, District Magistate , Allahabad And Anr. - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 3128 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13139 (7 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 9.

Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 3128 of 2006.

Surya Bali & others   Vs. Sri Amit Abhijat,D.M. & others.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

Earlier the petition filed a writ petition which was dismissed on 23.9.2002 on the ground that they have no right to claim appointment of the back log vacancies of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes invited on 31.8.2002.  In the second writ petition, they challenged fresh advertisement for direct recruitment of 18 posts of peon by a special drive to recruitment on back long vacancies for reserved categories.  In the order dated 18.7.2003, the Court had prima facie found from  material on record that the petitioners had worked after 1999 and thus they were not entitled to regularization and to block direct appointment on the vacancies.  An opportunity, however, was given to them to apply for selections with permissible age relaxation for the period they have worked.  The petitioner filed a contempt petition on 2216 of 2004 which was dismissed on 5.8.2004 as misconceived as no  regular selection had taken place.

Now the second contempt petition has been filed alleging that the petitioners have not been considered so far and  that one Sri K.P. Pandey has been regularized as peon in the Collectorate, Allahabad under Regularization Rules, 2001.

There is no averment that the respondents have either disobeyed any order passed on 22.9.2004 or the order dated 18.7.2003.

Now learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petitioners were disengaged in the year 2002 after the order passed in the first writ petition.

A contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of

2

Court Act alleging civil contempt may be filed if the respondents have intentionally and deliberately failed to comply with the directions of the Court. In the present case there was no such action taken by the District Magistrate or Nazir of District Court, Allahabad which may be  treated as  disobedience of the order passed by this Court.  

The contempt petition is dismissed.

7.8.2006.

BM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.