IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 837 of 2007(S) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.12733/2002 .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER IN THE OP: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.CHANDRAN, S/O. JANARDHANAN, AGED 37, KIZHAKKUKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ERATTACHIRA, PULIMATH P.O., KILIMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS IN THE OP: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAN LAL, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MOHAN JADAR, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R1 & 2 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & A.K. BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont.Case (C)No. 837 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008 Judgment H.L. Dattu, C. J: Petitioner No.1 in O.P.No.12733 of 2002, disposed of on 5th August 2002 has filed this Contempt Petition, inter alia, alleging that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid Original Petition. 2. This Court while disposing of the said Original Petition has held as hereunder: “...Whatever be the nature of appointment, whether it be on daily rate basis or contract basis, the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange should be preferred. Direct appointment from the open market shall not be resorted to. When a provisional appointee is appointed, it is clear that he will be out of service on completion of 179 days. Therefore, nothing prevents the Water Authority from notifying the employment exchange in advance and preparing a panel of candidates who could be appointed without any delay so that there will not be any gap disrupting the function of the authority. So the defence advanced by the counsel for the water COC.837/07 2 authority cannot be accepted. No appointment shall be made from the open market either on contract basis or on daily rate basis except from candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Needless to say, the persons appointed to the post of Operator otherwise than through PSC or employment exchange shall not be retained in service unless they are the beneficiaries of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.105/2001 and connected cases.” 3. Admittedly the order was passed by this Court on 5th August 2002. If for any reason, the petitioner was of the opinion that the respondent has deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders and directions passed by this Court, he should have approached this Court within the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. Since the petitioner has filed the Contempt Petition beyond the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Act, we decline to entertain this Contempt Petition. Accordingly the Contempt Petition is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU Chief Justice A.K. BASHEER Judge an.