N.L.Ganguly - (1.) THE petitioner had qualified himself in the degree of Ayurveda alongwith modern Medicine & Surgery from State of Bihar. Advertisement was published by the State Government for appointment of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. THE qualification prescribed is a degree in Ayurveda from recognised University of U. P., registered by the Board of Indian Medicines U. P. and six months house job THE petitioner since had qualified from State of Bihar, his application for employment as a Ayurvedic Doctor in U. P. was rejected. THE petitioner had filed a writ petition in which by an interim order dated 8-9-87, the Division Bench had directed "till further orders, the respondents are restrained from rejecting the application form filed by the petitioner on the ground of condition no. 1 (Annexure 3 of the writ petition)".
(2.) THE said writ petition came up for final hearing before Honourable B. M. Lal, J. and the Honourable Judge was pleased to allow the petition relying another judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Petition no. 17307 of 1984 Ashok Kumar Verma and others v. State and others. THE operative part of the judgment reads as under. "This court held that obtaining a degree from outside the State cannot be a ground for discrimination. This being so, on the same parity of law, this petition succeeds and is allowed- THE respondents are directed bo declare the result of the petitioner and if he is declared successful, to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner." After the judgment of this Court, the petitioner submitted an application to the Health Secretary, State of U. P. enclosing the certified copy of the order of the High Court dated 23-1-92 Said application was received in the Office of Secretary, Health Centre, State of U. P. Shasan, U. P. Lucknow on 31-1-92 The grievance of the petitioner is that it is near about more than three months, the respondents have neither issued any appointment letter nor declared the result. The conclusion is that opposite party has committed contempt of High Court's order and is liable to be punished for disobedience of the High Court's order.
(3.) THE law of contempt is technical and is to be enforced carefully. THE writ petition of the petitioner was allowed with the direction, "if he is declared successful to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner". This does not mean that there was any specific direction by the High Court that it is to be carried out in a specified period. Unless a specific direction was contained in the judgment of the Hi[gh Court, it cannot be said that the opposite party knowingly and deliberately flouted the orders of the High Court. It is only about three months have passed since filing of the certified copy of the order, this petition for tnkm,g proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act filed. Opposite parties may have not complied the orders of the High Court for any other reason or inability without there being any intention of disobedience of High Court's order. It cannot be said always that sufficient time has already elapsed and the opposite parties kept silent in the matter unnecessarily With certain purpose or intention to disobey the High Court's order. The settled law on the aspect is that in a case where the order which is said to be not obeyed unless there is some specific direction by the Court for complying the said order within a specified period, it cannot be said that the opposite parties disobeyed the order and committed wilful contempt of High Court's order. In a similar matter, this Court was pleased to hold that in such circumstances when there is no specific direction of the court fixing any time limit for compliance, it was necessary for the petitioner to approach the same Honourable Judge with an affidavit for fixing a date, a time limit for compliance of the said order.;