- (1.) This contempt petition arises out of the directions given by this court while deciding the batch of 7 writ petitions (SBCWP No. 1045/09 [Baljinder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors]. & other connected matters) on 10/1/2011 including the writ petition of present petitioner Chetan Ram - SBCWP No.1048/2009. The directions given by the coordinate bench of this Court in para 26 of the order dated 10/1/2011 is quoted below: "26. In the result, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The action of the respondents in denying the selection and appointment to the candidates belonging posts to the reserved category who are entitled to be included in the select list of general/open category on their own merit, on the ground that they have availed the benefit of relaxation of age meant for OBC category is declared illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners afresh and if after reshuffling of the merits by inclusion of the names of open/general category, according to their own merits, notwithstanding that they have availed the benefit of relaxation in age, the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed as per their merit then, they shall be provided appointment on the post of Constable with effect from the date the last candidate in their own category or in absence thereof in general category was appointed. The petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits for intervening period including the benefits of seniority, increment etc. The entire exercise for providing appointments to the petitioner, if they are found entitled to be appointed shall be completed expeditiously in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs."
(2.) Thereafter, the respondents appear to have passed the order in purported compliance of the said directions of this Court on 18/8/2011 and along with the copy of the order at Annex.R/2, the respondents have also produced the detailed minutes of the meeting of three members committee dated 18/8/2011. The order dated 18/8/2011 (Annex.R/2) is quoted below for ready reference: XXX XXX XXX
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Godara submitted that in pursuance of the said order dated 18/8/2011, the respondents rejected the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable, which he challenged by way of fresh writ petition no. 11380/2011 Chetan Ram vs. State & Ors, which was, however, withdrawn on 18/1/2012 with the following observations of the coordinate bench of this Court:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. After perusing the writ petition and more specifically the judgment dated 10/1/2011 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, it appears that there is judgment in favour of the petitioner and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, there is noncompliance of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is required to file contempt petition and not fresh writ petition to claim any relief because there is judgment in his favour. In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse of contempt proceedings, if there is any non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court. Ordered accordingly.";