IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Con.Case(C).No. 857 of 2009(S)
1. DR.JULARANI.P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.USHA TITUS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.O.(C) Nos.857 & 860 of 2009-S
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009.
JUDGMENT
In these two Contempt of Court Cases, the petitioners are alleging
disobedience of the interim order passed in the respective cases.
2. The respondent has filed separate affidavits in the matter.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Govt.
Pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that as per the interim order Annexure A1, this Court directed the
respondent to consider the case of provisional promotion of the petitioners
in the concerned department, especially in the light of Ext.P8 Govt. Order.
The representations submitted by the petitioners have been rejected as per
Annexures A10 and A9 orders respectively which is in gross violation of
the directions issued by this Court.
4. It is explained by the respondent in the affidavit that after passing
of Ext.P8 order, the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 2.3.2009
and deferred the preparation of the select list for the post of Senior Lecturer
in the respective department and hence, as on the date of passing of the
interim order, the D.P.C. had already referred the matter to the P.S.C. for
COC Nos.857 &
860/2009 2
clarification. It is explained that Annexures A10 and A9 orders have been
passed strictly in compliance with the directions of this court to examine the
case of the petitioners for promotion. This Court had only directed the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for provisional promotion
within the period prescribed in the interim order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prayer in the
interlocutory application is to direct the first respondent to promote the
petitioner. It is clear from the interim order that it is ordered as prayed for.
Therefore, automatically the petitioners ought to have been promoted.
6. I am afraid, the said contention cannot be accepted. The direction
has to be understood in the light of the operative portion of the interim
order. The direction was to the effect that the first respondent will consider
the case of promotion of the petitioners, especially in the light of Ext.P8
Govt. Order, in the concerned department. In that view of the matter, it
cannot be said that there is a willful disobedience of the order passed by this
Court. This is so, especially in the light of the various aspects pointed out
in the affidavit filed by the respondent.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that these are fit cases for taking action
under the Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly they are dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
COC Nos.857 &
860/2009 3
kav/