Palok Basu, J. - (1.) This contempt petition has been filed by Saleem Akhtar alleging that the proceedings for contempt for disobeying the order of this Court dated 9-5-1988 be initiated against the respondents and they be convicted accordingly.
(2.) Admittedly the applicant had filed a Writ Petition No. 8734 of 1988 in which a direction was issued on 9-5-1988 by a Division Bench of this Court that the representation of the applicant should be decided by the respondents within a period of four months. It appears that from the perusal of the affidavits and the connected papers annexed as Annexures to the two writ petitions one referred to above and the other one Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 2779 of 1989 that the grievance of the applicant was that his name was forwarded by the Selection Committee which recommended his name also for being appointed as semi-professional. He alleged that his name was scored out and later on the name of other candidate was inserted. It was this basis grievance which was the subject mater of representation which the High Court had directed to be decided within four months. It appears that the applicant had also a grievance that his post may be converted into the post of semi-professional. It appears that a regular appeal was filed by the applicant on 6-6-1988. In this appeal both the grievances, i.e., his name was wrongly removed from the list of candidates recommended by the Selection Committee and, secondly, that his post deserves to be converted into semi-profession, were combined. This appeal has been disposed of by the respondents on 22-10-1988. It is more than apparent, however, that this order of 22-10-1988 had been passed in the meeting of the Executive Council which was the adjourned meeting which had commenced on 22-8-1988. The office had put a note before the respondents that the allegation of the list of candidates was baseless. The note further said that the candidate selected was already working at a higher post than that of the applicant and, therefore, the said candidate was selected and there was no question of erasing the name of the applicant. It is note-able that the appeal contained the prayer that the post of the applicant should be converted into semi-professional even though in the narration of facts the grievance noted earlier about erasing of his name was also included. Therefore, the prayer did not contain specific relief as regards the erasing of the name from the selected candidates list is concerned.
(3.) In view of the facts stated above, it is more than apparent that this appeal was rightly decided, the hearing of which had commenced within four months time allowed by the High Court in its order dated 9th May, 1989. These observations are made only for disposing of this contempt application and shall not be read and interpreted in any way so as to affect the merits of Writ Petition No. 2779 of 1989 the file of which has been summoned for clearer understanding of this contempt petition.;