Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) NON compliance of the order dated 19 -3 -2012 is alleged in this contempt petition. By the said order this court referring to its earlier order dated 9 -11 -2011 in case of Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011) and 95 other writ petitions directed as under: - "The controversy being squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in Prem Prakash Sharma, supra, these writ petitions are disposed of requiring all the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents, who shall consider and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of its receipt along with copy of this order."
(2.) MR . Vigyan Shah learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions of this court to consider the petitioner's representation has been complied with by the respondents only in form and not in substance, and the petitioner's representation has been dismissed without reference to the directions of this court in Prem Prakash Sharma's case. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge in Prem Prakash Sharma's case passed an agreed order on various aspects of disputes arising from RSRTC's recruitment of Conductors against the vacancies of 2009 -10 and 2010 -11. Condition No. 2 of the agreed order was as under: - "The respondent corporation will not insist upon minimum pass marks in the trade test, (and) accordingly, one would not be denied benefit of appointment merely for the reason that he/she has failed to secure minimum pass marks in the trade test. The appointment would, however, be purely on the basis of merit and if one has failed to secure merit marks, he/she would not be entitled for appointment." It has been submitted that in spite of exclusion of requirement of minimum marks in the trade test from reckoning in evaluating comparative merit of candidates for appointment as Conductors, the petitioner's representation has been rejected without considering his comparative merit in the ST category (to which he belonged) on the specious ground that all the vacancies of the post of Conductors with the RSRTC for 2009 -10 and 2010 -11 as advertised had been filled up and the recruitment process completed. It has been submitted that the purported decision on representation is thus not a decision (as a decision requires address on the grievance agitated) as warranted by the order dated 19 -3 -2012 but is a palpably malafide exercise of discretion by the respondents to deny the petitioner appointment to the post of Conductor in spite of his comparative merit in the ST category over those unlawfully selected.
(3.) RELYING on this court's judgment dated 3 -12 -2012 in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 403/2012, it has been submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that completion of a selection process does not close the doors for candidates illegally left out in spite of their better comparative merit over those appointed. And consequently a writ petition challenging a selection process and arbitrary exclusion of the more meritorious candidate had to be decided on merit. It is submitted that in the circumstances the rejection of the petitioner's representation on the ground of completion of the selection process is obviously an escape from the duty of the respondents and their "willful default" in failing to decide the petitioners representation on merits. It has been further submitted that a casual dismissal of representation filed by the petitioner under the directions of this court cannot be construed as compliance with directions of this court. Contrarily it evidences a complete disregard if not defiance in complying with the order of this court to consider the petitioner's representation and is ex -facie contempt of court for which the respondents be punished.;