- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents-contemnors.
(2.) THIS contempt petition is arising out of order dated 16.10.2006 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposing of writ petition filed by the petitioner with the following directions: - "After the Full Bench decision in Shanker Lal Verma vs. R.S.E.B. Reported in (1991) 1 W.L.C. Page 1, it is no more a question of debate that qualification held by the petitioner is not included in the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of L.D.C. since amendment in the Rules of 1959 from June, 1985 and petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of L.D.C. that fell vacant after such amendment. However, in the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the Court has directed that such persons shall continue to be considered eligible for the vacancies which has arisen prior to amendment in the Rules and remained unfilled. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in light of the aforesaid observations and the directions issued in aforesaid Full Bench decision. No order as to costs." The respondents have filed the reply to the contempt petition. According to Annex.10 (Minutes of Review DPC dated 27.06.2011), the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and against the 3 (three) vacancies for the year 1984-85, they have considered the names of 9 (nine) persons, in which the petitioner's name figures at serial number 5 (five) and the competent DPC decided to recommend the names of first three persons, namely, S/Sh. Narendra Joshi, Deewanchand and Deendayal Swami for being promoted to the post of L.D.C. against the said 3 (three) vacancies of the year 1984-85 and thus they have considered the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, therefore, submitted that the order of this Court stood complied with in the aforesaid manner and no deliberate disobedience of the directions was committed by them.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were two persons promoted for vacancies of the year 1981 for the post of L.D.C., namely, Kailash Ranga and Surendra Kumar Vyas, whose promotions orders, however, were later on withdrawn by the respondent- Board. He further submitted that for this, the respondents have not explained the position of these two vacancies against which these two persons, namely, Kailash Ranga and Surendra Kumar Vyas were promoted, whereas the petitioner had right to be considered for being promoted to the post of L.D.C. against the vacancies of the year 1981 also. He, therefore, submitted that the directions of this Court remained un-complied with, and such non-compliance being deliberate, the respondents deserve to be punished in contempt jurisdiction by this Court.;