Court No. - 22 Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 2094 of 2009 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And Another Respondent :- Smt. Aradhana Shukla Managing Director U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nig Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Upadhyaya Respondent Counsel :- D K Upadhyaya Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the petitioners and supplementary counter
affidavit on behalf of the opposite party filed today are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Addl.
Advocate General, assisted by Sri Rajiv Srivastava on behalf of the opposite
party.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the posts in question
are being filled up from open market and the petitioners are not being adjusted
although a clear direction has been given by the Division Bench vide
judgment dated 29.03.2008 to adjust the petitioners and similarly situated
persons.
Argument of learned Addl. Advocate General is to the effect that nowhere it
has been directed or provided by this Court that these persons should be given
preference and they should be appointed on priority basis before filling up the
vacancies which are otherwise available beyond the number of vacancies of
the petitioners. Looking to the financial constraints and the project being
processed through State Government, the present Managing Director is bound
to obey the guidelines and instructions issued by the State Government from
time to time. He also submits that equal number of vacancies in comparison
to the petitioners claim are still vacant. This has been done purposely with a
view that the petitioners would be given appointment/ adjusted as directed by
this Court. His further contention is that the State Government has directed
that the posts should be filled up through deputation as the State Government
has got surplus persons and they are to be adjusted in this project.
Submission on the part of the Managing Director though appears to be
meaningful on the face of it, but the Court cannot go behind the intention of
the opposite parties.
The petitioners’ case is to be considered in the light of the observation made
by the Division Bench. The Division Bench’s directive has not been followed
up till now only on the pretext that there is some direction from the State
Government. Direction of the State Government cannot prevail over the
direction of this Court. Direction of this Court does not mean a futile
direction or a direction, which is meaningless and is not amenable of being
carried out or complied with by the opposite parties.
There has been a long drawn litigation between the parties and the matter has
been taken up to the Apex Court and judgment of the Division Bench has
attained finality by the Apex Court. In these circumstances, the Court has to
go by the tone and tenor and the spirit of the judgment of this Court. Since
the judgment of this Court, prima facie, has been flouted, therefore, the
opposite parties are given a second chance to look into the matter and finalize
the things in such a manner that the judgment of this Court is complied with
in letter and spirit instead of bypassing the same under some lame excuse that
direction has been issued from the State Government for filling up the post
through deputation.
List on 08.02.2010.
The opposite party will come out with a proper solution by the next date and it
is expected that the order of this Court would be complied with as its spirit
requires.
Order Date :- 22.1.2010
RBS/-