- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. K. Sharma appearing for the opposite party. The applicant by means of this application has sought for punishing the opposite party Sri J. N. Singh, the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Jhansi Region, Jhansi for violating the order of this Court dated 17-4-1990 which is filed as Annexure-1 to this application.
(2.) Briefly stating the facts of this case is that about 100 posts of Conductors fell vacant in Jh4nsi Region to which the petitioner applied. In the advertisement made by the said department the minimum qualification of the said post was Intermediate but later on while calling the candidates for written test, restriction of 55% marks was imposed. Aggrieved by that restriction the petitioner challenged the said order by means of a writ petition before this Court. Initially, interim order was passed directing the respondents not to debar the petitioner from appearing in the said examination scheduled to be held on 11-5-1989 on the ground that he had not obtained 50% marks in the Intermediate Examination. Later on in another order passed by this Court a direction was issued to the candidates similar to the petitioner who approached to this Court in the writ petition to declare the result. Similarly in the case of the petitioner also this Court directed the Corporation to declare the result. It was further directed that it would be done within three weeks from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of that order by the petitioner before the relevant authority. The averment made in the application is that in pursuance of the said order the applicant approached the respondent on 29-5-90 which was duly received. It is further contended that about one and half months have passed since then but the result has yet not been declared and the stipulated period of three weeks has lapsed. On account of the said reasoning the application for contempt is moved by the applicant for punishing the opposite party. After notice to the opposite party, a counter affidavit has been filed. As per averments made in para XII of the counter affidavit it is stated that those candidates who had succeeded in the written test were called for interview which was held from 5-7-89 to 8-7-89 and since the petitioner succeeded in the written test he was permitted to appear in the inter- view. However, after appearing in the said interview he did not succeed and was not finally selected. The contention is that since the petitioner has already appeared in the written test in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court and after he being declared successful was permitted to appear in the interview but only he was not found in the select list of the conductors of the region, no appointment letter was issued to him. It is on these facts the contention has been raised by the petitioner that since the opposite party has not declared the result within the stipulated period of three weeks from the date of service of the order, the opposite party be punished.
(3.) Before dealing with the present case it is necessary to refer to the legal position pertaining to contempts of courts. This has to be done because time and again cases are regularly increasing the number of contempt proceedings, both on account of approach of the person, officer, authority towards the orders passed by this Court and also on account of delay in implementing those orders, the parties approach to expedite its execution.;