- (1.) WE have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena for the appellant. Sri P.K. Mishra, appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - State Election Commission. The standing counsel appears for respondent No. 1.
(2.) IN this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2004 in writ petition No. 18730 of 2003, in which a direction was issued that the benefit of giving preference allowed in the judgment of Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P.P.N.S.B. Sangh, AIR 1995 SC 1115, (in that all other things being equal the petitioner will be given preference in direct recruitment), be allowed, if the petitioner applies for any post of clerk to fall vacant for future under the State Election Commission. The Court has further directed to allow other benefits, which are available to him under para 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The facts given in the judgment under challenge and other judgments of this Court, deciding petitioner's writ petitions, are that the petitioner had worked on daily wages of contract, at the rate of Rs. 45/- per day as clerk in the State Election Commission in District Sonebhadra from 26.3.1995 to9.2.1996. He filed a writ petition No. 6570 of 1996 in which an interim order was passed on 20.2.1996 directing that the question of appointment of the petitioner for the purpose of election work in the next Parliament Election may be considered. He was allowed to continue from 1.4.1996. His wages were however paid only till 28.2.1997. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.1.1998 with following directions : "This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner is actually working from 1.3.1997 and is still working, he shall be paid his salary of the post of clerk and that his case for regularization in service or for regular appointment against available vacancy shall be considered according to law by the respondent Ho. 2, who shall pass a speaking order within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The termination orders dated 9.2.1996 and 28.2.1997 shall stand quashed." The petitioner-appellant's representation for regularization was rejected. He filed a writ petition No. 7170 of 2000, which was dismissed on 29.11.2000. The Special Appeal No. 784 of 2000 was allowed in part on 14.12.2000 with following directions: "Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that in the event there are permanent vabancies available and the State Election Commission feels to fill up the same, the case of the petitioner along with other candidates should also be considered for permanent appointment and the services rendered by the writ petitioner should also be taken into account while giving permanent appointment."
(3.) THE petitioner-appellant thereafter filed a contempt application No. 2409 of 2001 for compliance of the order of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 784 of 2000. An objection was taken that the petitioner did not apply for appointment in response to the advertisement issued on 15.12.2000, for filling up of 49 posts of Clerks and Typists under direct recruitment. Learned Judge hearing the contempt application on 12.9.2002 found that there was no such direction given by the Court to the petitioner to apply, and that the consideration of his appointment was not subject to making an application. Learned Judge hearing the contempt matter summoned the opposite parties to appear before the Court on 29.10.2002 for framing of charges. THE authorities appeared before the Court. On the explanation given by them, the contempt application was dismissed on 6.1.2003 holding that there was no wilful disobedience of the order of the Division Bench dated 14.12.2000. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 6.1.2003 dismissing the contempt application. The Supreme Court on 7.4.2003 dismissed the SLP with the following order : "In our view impugned order passed in contempt proceedings does not call for our interference, however, if the petitioner's rights are affected and orders passed by the Courts are not complied with, it would be open to him to resort to any other alternative remedy for execution including the filing of a fresh writ petition. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly." ;