D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 1631 of 2004, W.P. (S) No. 3224 of 2003 and W.P. (S) No. 6154 of 2003 vide order dated 16th March, 2010 has not yet been complied. Learned counsel for the University submitted that in due compliance of the direction given by this Court, interview of all the eighteen petitioners, who were petitioners in earlier three writ petitions, were taken and after holding interview and after following due procedure for selection, six persons have been selected, whose names have also been given in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. Thus after holding interview, few persons are not found suitable and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is contempt committed by the respondents because the direction given by this Court to consider the cases of those petitioners, have been considered and few persons have been selected and, therefore, this contempt application may not be entertained by this Court.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the earlier direction given by this Court vide order dated 16th March. 2010 in W.P. (S) No, 1631 of 2004, W.P. (S) No. 3224 of 2003 and W.P. (S) No. 6154 of 2003, it appears that following direction was given by this Court in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order: 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, these writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the Respondent -University to consider the applications filed by the petitioners in response to the Advertisement No. 1/2008 and also to entertain fresh applications from other candidates who may not have applied till date, if such applications are received within 15 days of their order, and while considering the candidature of the candidates, the respondent shall keep in view the job suitability, qualifications, experience etc. of the candidates and shall give preference to such of the candidates including the present petitioners in respect of their job experience and continuous service rendered during the past several years as daily wage employees. In taking final decision regarding the selection of the candidates, the respondents shall also abide by the directions contained in the order dated 29.08.1989 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1260/89 (R) and act accordingly. The respondents shall ensure that the dates for interview of the candidates, as per the applications received, should be fixed within a reasonable period and the process of selection of the candidates, pursuant to the advertisements issued, shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of this order. Such of the petitioners and other daily wages employees who may not have applied in response to the Advertisement No. 1/2008 and any such subsequent advertisement, shall submit their respective applications within two weeks from the date of this Older. In view of the aforesaid direction, the respondents have allowed those petitioners to face the interview before the Interviewing Committee for the post, in question and the Interviewing Committee, upon subjective satisfaction, selected six persons, out of total eighteen persons. The names of selected candidates are as under: (i) Jai Narayan Prasad; (ii)Md. Abbas Ali; (iii) Israfil Haque; (iv) Mahmood Alam; (v) Mohd. Kafil Ansari; and (vi) Tulsidar Mahto Thus, the aforesaid persons have been selected by the Interviewing Committee.
(3.) IT appears that the applicants in these contempt applications had also appeared in the interview, but, they were not selected by the Interviewing Committee. Merely because they were not selected by the Interviewing Committee, it does not tantamount to wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In fact, there is due compliance of the order passed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, I see no reason to entertain this contempt application and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;