Sifteito Ben BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR fC.G.1 Contempt Case fCivill No. ^8 2- of 2011 "^ APPLICANT L^l ^-••••^••^...^ ^y>^^\ Chandrahas Kashyap, aged about40 years, by Advocate, Son of Maniram Kashyap, R/o. C/o. V.R. Sahu, near ..••••K'"fy' Parmeshwari Vidyalaya, Imalibhata, ..•<o4.s-^'^ , ?^- •^ Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), VERSUS / . RESPONDENT (CONTEMNOR1 1. N.K. Oshwal, Secretary, Ministry of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2. A.H. Siddique, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ w^s^^ '•sss^ ,<7<T HIGH COURT OF GHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR Slnale Bench: Hon5ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shnvastava. 4. PETITIONER RESPONOENT/ CONTEMPT GASE (Ci N0.282Q011 Chandrahas Kast^ap Versus =, .4 :1.': N.K.Oshwal and snofter CONTEMNOR COMTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTIC1.E 215 OF THE SONSTOTUTiONDF INQIA , READ^nnTH SBCTION 120F THE^eONTEMPtOF THE COURTSACT. 1971 « ^ Present: - Shrl Raghvendra Pradhan, counsal for the pettioner, SM;:^^^ ORALORDER . . , ^ - !;. -.i-..:1- s. . (Passed on 24 of August, 2011| » Heard ort admission. 2. Leamed counsel for the petltioner submits that vUe ©rder(iated 28/02/2)09 passed in W.P.(S) No.59/08, it was held that the Di^rkA Magistrate cannot appoint ADPPOs, in generat, on contract basis. The writ petition was finally disposed off obsenring that the contrart appomtees may .continue till regular appointment is made through proper sciactton by the second respondent - Chhattisgarh Public ^r/ice Commlsaoa w ttie term of extension is over, whichever Is eartier. It is further submitted that In the aforesaid decision, it was held that the powerof appointmert: reste onty with the State Govemment and not with the Diarict Magistrate. However, ^ even thereafter, the contract appointments were nof brought to an end and no aitemative arrahgements as per order of the Court was made,as was observed by the Writ Appellate Court in its order dated 5/04/2018. It is further submftted that the Appetlate Court ciearly obssrved in para 10 of its /-' y ,.-fSS^;^, ls.s?.8\ S ¥:!l r y order that the State Govemment by not making any alternattve arrangements and conttnued ADPPOs even after oyiry ofe perlo^ »of extension of their appolntments is violative of the dfrections gh/ewby the» Wit Court. It Is also submitted that on the Submisston nade before Wse Appellate Court that petitioners, havingbeen placed In t) select list^of 2006 are entitled for appolntment, liberty was granted to approach the Govemment by fillng representation and further dtrected to consider ttie. same In the llght of the observations made in the order. Ttie submissipR of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by issuing the wcter idatedi 1/1/2011 (Annexure C/3), the State Govemmert has aeted in vinlfful disobedience of the order eartier passed by the Writ Court and by the Appellate Court as the period of contractual appolntment equM npt be extended any further. It fs atso submitted that on representatiqn made, the same has been rejected vide order dated 4/6/2010 which is atso in atter violation and disregard of the spirtt of the order of the Court by <jvWch the representation was dlrected to be declded bythe Court. 3. The prtitioners had filed writ petitiCTi praytng f@r quashing contractuai appointment made by the Di^rict Magistrate and that the respondents be directed to appoint Assistant Public Prosecutor ffom amongst the selected candidates who are selected by the Public Service Commission under Chhattisgarh ADPPO Exam - 06. Though, it was h^d that the power of appointment indudlng ctmtract appointments reste only in the hands of the State Govemment and the District Maglstrata has no ^ power to appoint the ADPPOs, tn general, on contract basis, taking iito consideratlon that the appointees have eontinued, it \was observed that ie contract appointment may continue till regular appointraent^ is made through proper selection by the Chhattisgarh Public Servtee ©ommisston or the term of extension is over, whichever is eartter. Tteers was BO direction to appoint thepetitioner from ttie select list. Moreover, the order pgssed by the Writ Court, does-not prohibtt the State Govemme(rtto»mal(e regular or contract appointment. The AppellateCourtalso victe Bs order dated 5/4^010 held in para 10 ttiat by continutng contractappointmente after explry of the perlod of initial appotntmente, the State ©overnmenthas> acted in violation of the directions of the Court as no altemative arrangement has been made. The application of the petitlqnere fbr being appointed from the select list of 2006, was not examined but (hepetWoners were given liberty to approach the State Govemmerrt by filing representation wtth a furttier dlrection to consider the same In the llght of the observations made in the order. 4. The order passed in the writ petition and in the writ app^l show ttet the issue which was decided was that the Distriot Maglstrate h no power to make contract appointment and it is the State Govemment alone, whteh could exercise power under Section 25 oftheCode of Griminal ProcedUne, 1973. The order dated'1/1/2011 has been passed by the State Govemment extending the period of contractual appotntment. It IB not ttie case that the order has again been passed by the Di^rict Magistrate. ^ Moreover, 1 do not flnd that the State Govemment was prohBatted ftwn extending the period of contractual appointment under avy (^Bcumstenoes» Order dated 1/1/2011 (Annexure C/3) shows that ttre icotttractuat appointments have been extended Tor a period ofonc year or N11 regidar appointments on the post are made, whtehever is eertler. In the orda" passed bythe leamed single jiKige on 28/02/09.iit has been observed fha the contract appointees may'continue till regular appoirdmeirt te made through proper selectton by the Public Service Commlsston ortteterm of extension ts over, whlchever is earller. 5. Before the Writ Appellate Court, submisslon was macte by the petitioners as afyellante that ttie State Govemment has acted upon tha select list of 2006, in whlch, their names find place, by making appointments of four persons on 28/07/09 and as such, once.ttw peledt Iret of 2006 was acted up<m in 2009, there was no occasion for the Dl^riot IVtegistrate to make appointments on contract basjs. Hpwever, ttie Appellate Court did not entertain the plea on the ground that the submisston couhl not be considered in the appeal as ttiose contentions are not available in the writ petltion and liberty was given to approach the State .Govemment by flling representation with a directlon to the State Govemment to consider the same in ttie llght of the observatjor®made therein. The representation'made by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 4/6/2010. The order shows that the seled list was validiipte 28/07/09 and on ttie proposal of the State Government, the Publte Service l.^...^t?' Oeepti Commission extended the valtdtty of the list upto 31/08/3009. -AsifouR candidates, amwigst 32 selected and appointed candidaSesclid nc( jein or resigned, four posts remained vacant durlng the valdity of tt'ie setect list and the order of appointment was therefere issued ©n28(07/08. tt has been also stated that the recruitment was made in respect of 32 vacant posts, though subsequentiy, on 21/05/07, 74 posts have also bean sanctioned. Therefore, ie appointments have been^ven CTily.to 32 selected candtelates against 32 vacancies advertised. ThereftM^y the representation of the petitioner has been decided vlde arder datetf 4/6/2010 and there is nothing in the order to show thart it is in dsregard pr in violation of the order psssed by the Writ Court on 28/02/09 and the Appellate Court on 5/4/2010. 6. If the petitloners allege that the order Is not conect, their remedy lies elsewrtiere. 1 do not find that the respondents have corronltted any contempt by issuing order dated 1/1/2011 and rejeeting petitioner's representation vide order dated 4/6/2010. The petftion te thensfore dismissed. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge /-' --•• ..-Jt