Praveer Kumar Principal … vs Reena Kumari on 8 August, 2017

                                                             1

                                                                                       NON-REPORTABLE

                                          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10238 OF 2017
                              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20097 OF 2017
                                           [DIARY NO. 20473/2017]

                         PRAVEER KUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                         DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY
                         WELFARE, GOVT. OF U.P.  ORS.                            Appellant (s)

                                                            VERSUS

                         REENA KUMARI  ORS.                                      Respondent(s)

                                                    J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in

this case, it is not necessary to issue notice to the

respondents.

3. The respondents had approached the High Court of

Allahabad at Lucknow Bench alleging contempt on the

part of the appellants for not having implemented the

Judgments dated 01.02.2013 and 21.10.2013 in the

proper perspective.

4. When the matter came up for consideration in the

High Court in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court

passed the following order on 21.04.2015 :-
Signature Not Verified
“Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2017.08.12
10:58:56 IST
Reason:

counsel for the petitioner and the
learned standing counsel for quite
some time.

2

Dr. Misra has painstakingly pointed
out to the Court that the directions
in the bunch of the writ petition
leading being W.P. No.7868(SS) 2011
and the review petition no. 92 of
2013, there are clear directions for
giving preference to the petitioners
while filling up the vacancies of
three thousands Basic Health Workers
(femala). It has clearly been
mentioned that the first appointment
has to be given to 195 petitioners and
the remaining vacancies to be filled
up by general candidate. If the
petitioners had become overage, the
same has to be relaxed. Moreover,
working of the petitioners were never
in doubt before the Court in the
counter- affidavit filed in the writ
petition. It has also not been claimed
that the petitioners are not working.
Hence, this position cannot be
reviewed by asking for certificate of
working/ experience from the
respective C.M.Os. The general
advertisement will not be binding upon
the petitioners, who form a class by
themselves. Under the concept of
equality before the law, the
petitioner cannot be treated at par
with the general candidate and hence
certain requirements of verification
etc. will not be applicable for say
viz-a-viz the petitioners.

3

In such a situation, this Court feels
that in case the petitioners
candidature has been rejected on the
ground that their working certificates
have been by A.C.M.O., is totally
unacceptable for the reasons firstly;
there was no requirement of such
certificate and secondly; if the
certificates have been issued but not
found correct by the opposite parties,
their appointments could not have been
denied on this ground. There appears
to be some serious misgivings in the
mind of the opposite parties, hence
the compliance of the Court’s order
has not been forthcoming.

Since the order has not been complied
with, this Court comes to the
conclusion that prima-facie a case for
committing contempt of Court, is made
out.

However, learned standing counsel
submitted that he will advise in the
light of observations made by this
Court today and the argument advanced
by Dr.L.P. Mishra, to the opposite
parties. Therefore, on his request
that the matter will be taken care of
in the light of today’s discussion,
this Court grants 15 days further time
to the opposite parties to comply with
the Court’s order. In case compliance
is not made, opposite party no.
5-Principal Secretary, Department of
Medcial, Health and Family Welfare,
4

Lucknow along with opposite party no.
6 Dr. Vinay Laxmi, Director General,
Medical Healthy and Family Welfare,
U.P., Lucknow shall appear in person
before this Court on 7.5.2015 to show-
cause why action be not taken against
them for committing contempt of this
Court.”

5. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants, submits that before granting

opportunity to the appellants to submit their

explanation, the High Court might not have compelled

the appearance of the Principal Secretaries and other

officials. We find substance in the submission made

by the learned counsel. Accordingly, we dispose of

this appeal making it clear that after the court

considering the explanation offered by the

appellants, in case it is found that explanation is

not acceptable and that the appellants are otherwise

liable to be proceeded against in contempt

proceedings, only then their appearance will be

insisted.

No costs.

…………………..J.

[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

…………………..J.

[ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

August 08, 2017.

5

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Diary No(s). 20473/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-01-2017
in SA No. 368/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

PRAVEER KUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE, GOVT. OF U.P. ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

REENA KUMARI ORS. Respondent(s)

(CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP)
(EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 08-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, U.P.

Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
Ms. Charu Ambwani, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Article source: Supreme Court

EmailEmail
PrintPrint
WP Socializer Aakash Web