- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the State- opposite parities .
(2.) After the last date i.e. 29.11.2013, supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 12.12.2013. Learned A.A.G submitted that the petitioners, who were nominated as Chairman and Members of the State Youth Commission and were removed vide order dated 16.2.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Sports, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand had approached this Court in the W.P.C. No. 1181 of 2013. Pursuant to the quashing of notification dated 16.2.2013 by this Court vide judgment dated 28.6.2013 passed in W.P.C No. 1181 of 2013, the petitioners assumed the post on 2.7.2013 which has never been objected to by the opposite parties or any official of the State. As such, the contention that the opposite parties- State have disobeyed the judgment of this Court is not true and the order of this Court has been fully complied with. The opposite parties have also tendered unconditional apology and stated that they could not have ever imagined to disobey the order of this Court.
(3.) Learned A.A.G. further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 issued a letter on 2.7.2013 for convening the meeting of Youth Commission on 10.7.2013 in the capacity of Chairman of the Commission. He also wrote to the Secretary, Department of Sports, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs, Government of Jharkhand on 17.7.2013 for appointment of a Member Secretary of the Commission, which are annexed as Annexure- C and D respectively to the show cause filed on 12.12.2013. It has been stated that even the petitioners have accepted in para 6 of the contempt petition that after the judgment of this Court the original notification of their appointment dated 8.1.2013 became effective and, therefore, they started to function by issuing necessary direction and directing the Secretary to call for a meeting of Youth Commission. Learned A.A.G. has submitted that petitioners continued on their post till 20.11.2013 and as a matter of fact the petitioners have also been paid salary for the said period. The letter dated 11.12.2013 and the cheques issued in favour of the petitioners are enclosed as Annexure E, F and F/1 respectively. Learned A.A.G. has also submitted that though the petition seeking review preferred by the State of Jharkhand being Civil Review Nos. 55 of 2013 and 56 of 2013 challenging the judgment dated 28.6.2013 was dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2013 but this Court clearly observed at para 18 that the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2013 had not dealt with the issues relating to the original appointment of the writ petitioners as Chairman and Member of the Youth Commission. It also observed that notice issued upon the petitioners after passing of the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2013 by the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand asking them to explain as to why their services be not terminated as they do not possess the necessary eligibility criteria and qualification for the said post is an independent cause of action for the Respondents to agitate. This Court did not make any comment upon such exercise by the State in the said review petition and the interim order restraining the State authority from taking any final decision in the matter pursuant to the said notice was vacated. It is submitted that the subsequent removal of petitioners from the post of Chairman and Member vide notification dated 20.11.2013 after due notice and affording opportunity of personal hearing to them was not the cause of action in the main writ petition or in the review petition. Therefore, the action of removal of these petitioners vide notification dated 20.11.2013 cannot be said to be an act of defiance of the judgment passed by this Court. In such circumstances, learned A.A.G has submitted that there is no willful disobedience by the opposite parties of the judgment of this Court so as to initiate any proceeding against them. They have otherwise also tendered unconditional apology before this Court for any inadvertence on their part. Therefore, this Contempt Petition deserves to be dropped.;