IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 201 of 2006 Smt. Bebi Tarannum & another ...Petitioners Vs Sri Surendra Kumar Maheshwari & others …Respondents Sri Khalil Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri M.C. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioners have prayed for summoning the respondents and punishing them for willful and deliberately disobedience of the order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition NO. 333 of 2006(S/S), Smt. Bebi Tarannum & another Vs State of Uttaranchal & others. 2. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, runs as under:- “Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners treating them as equivalent to B.T.C. Urdu if the petitioners are otherwise eligible for consideration. The authorities concerned shall also consider whether the petitioners are entitled for the same in view of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 794 (S.B) of 2002. Further the eligibility criteria for admission to a course or educational qualification are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned according to the rules and available vacancies in future. Since selection process has already been completed, therefore, this order will not prejudice those persons who have already been selected and are working. However, the petitioners may be considered for any future vacancies.” 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the following facts have been enumerated, which reads as under:- “That in pursuance of the order dt. 9th March, 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Court, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination which was held on 20th May, 2006. The petitioners appeared in the said written examination on 20th May, 2006, however as they could not come in the merit list as much they were not called for interview.” 4. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is evident that the written examination was held on 20th May, 2006 and the petitioner appeared in the said examination but he could not come in the merit list. Hence, he was not called for interview. The respondent has also annexed the copy of the advertisement as well as revised merit list of the candidates as annexure Nos. CA1 and CA2. 5. In view of the above, I am of the view that there is no contempt has been made out against the respondents. I do not find any justification to continue to contempt petition against the respondents futhermore. 6. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07.05.2009 ASWAL