Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
(2.) This petition in contempt alleges disobedience of a final judgment rendered on 1 October 2012 in a Special Appeal. The issue itself related to a selection process initiated by the BSNL [Corporation] for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer. Although, the applicants did not find success before the learned Single Judge, the Special Appeal was allowed with the following observations: "We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003 would be applicable to the actual examinations held in the year 1999 or 2000. It does not speak to the examinations of the year 1999 or 2000. It clearly provided for the examinations held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000. In paragraph 7 the writ petition specific plea has been raised that the examinations were held on 15/16th May, 1999 and thereafter, it was next to be held on 17/18th June, 2000 but the examination was not held on 17/18th June, 2000. It was actually held on 17/18th February, 2001. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition is reproduced below: "7. That, the aforesaid vacancies upto 31.8.99 could not be filled up completely by means of the aforesaid departmental examination dated 15/16th May, 1999 and some of the vacancies remained vacant. In order to fill up the remaining vacancies the department vide letter dated 28.3.2000 decided to conduct another examination which was scheduled to be held on 17/18th June, 2000. But the examination could not be held on the scheduled date, thereafter, it was scheduled to be conducted on 16/17th Sept.,2000 but it could not be conducted on this date. Ultimately vide letter dated 28.11.2000, it was rescheduled to be held on 17/18th feb.2001 and it was conducted on the same date." In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the contends of paragraph 7 of the writ petition are matters of record and needs no specific reply. It may be mentioned here that in paragraph 8 the respondents have admitted that examination was held on 17/18th February 2001. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below: "8. That the contents of paragraph no.6 of the writ petitione are mater of record and needing no specific reply. However, it is stated that competitive examination, (15%) quota) for vacancies upto 31.8.99 was held on 17/18.2.2001. The exam held on 15/16 May 99 was for vacancies upto 31.3.1998. The standard for this competitive exam is based on the merit list of candidates who qualify with minimum 40% marks in each paper for OC and 33% marks in each paper for SC/ST. 9. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the writ petition are matters of records need no specific reply. " Thus the fact that no examination was held in the year 2000 stands admitted by the respondents. The examinations were actually held in the year 1999 and thereafter in the year 2001. Relaxation provided vide circular letter dated 10th March, 2003 would, therefore, be applicable to the candidates appearing in the examination 1999. They are entitled to the benefit and relaxation provided therein. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and direct the respondent no.4 to redraw the result of the appellants in the light of the observations made above as they are entitled to the benefit of relaxation as provided under Clause 3(iv) of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said respondents. If ultimately they are found eligible for promotion, then in that event they shall all be promoted according to their respective batch mates with all consequential benefits. The appeal succeeds and is allowed."
(3.) From a reading of the judgment rendered in appeal, it is evident that the primary issue, which arose for consideration, was the import of clause 3(iv) of a Circular Letter dated 10 March 2003 and whether the same would have relevance to the selection that was held in the year 1999. The Circular itself provided that the relaxation in respect of aggregate marks would be applied to either of the two examinations namely, that held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000. It is upon an interpretation of this particular clause of the Circular that the Division Bench in the Special Appeal set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Judge and directed the fourth respondent therein to redraw the results of the appellants in light of the observations extracted above.;