IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 149 of 2007 Sayeed Ahmad … Petitioner Vs Smt. Manjula Pandey & others … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be summoned for facing the proceedings of contempt committed by them by not complying with the order dated 21.08.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1133 of 2006 (S/S). 2. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents and perused the record. 3. The impugned order passed by this Court reads as under:- “The submission of the petitioner is that petitioner applies for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.06.2002. Since the candidatures of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates were not considered by the respondents for selection in view of the fact that they have obtained certificate of Maollim-e-urdu. Consequently, petitioner and other similarly situated persons filed writ petition No. 794 (SB) of 2002 (Azad Ahmad & 11 others Vs State of Uttaranchal and another) before this court. This court on 02.08.2003 while allowing the writ petition directed the respondents to recognize the certificate of 2 Maollim-e-urdu equivalent to BTC (Urdu) for the recruitment against the appropriate posts to those petitioners, who have obtained certificate of Maollim-e- urdu prior to 11.08.1997. The submission of the petitioner is that he has obtained certificate of Maollim-e-urdu in the year 1996 and some of the candidates, who have filed writ petition, have been provided appointment by the respondents in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.06.2002 and petitioner has not been considered by the respondents for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. In case, the posts are still vacant in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.06.2002 and petitioner is otherwise eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher respondents may consider the case of the petitioner and provide appointment if he is eligible to be appointed. With this direction the writ petition as well as interim relief application NO. 10560 of 2006 is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.” 4. The respondent No. 4 – Mr. Anil Kumar Bhoj, Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Udham Singh Nagar has filed the response and thereafter he has also filed the affidavit of compliance. 5. The answering respondent has submitted in paragraph – 4 of the affidavit of compliance that the case of the petitioner was considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). The answering deponent has 3 further averred in the same paragraph that as there is no vacant post available at present, therefore, the petitioner has been informed that his case of appointment will be considered for future when any post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) lies vacant in Government Primary School. 6. The order dated 18.10.2008 by which the matter, pertaining to the petitioner has been considered and the petitioner has been informed to this effect that his case for appointment shall be considered when any post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) falls vacant in future. 7. Under the aforesaid averments made in paragraph – 4 of the affidavit of compliance clearly shows that the answering respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and has further extended the assurance to the petitioner to consider his case for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu), when the post falls vacant. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any justification to continue the contempt proceedings before this Court. The petitioner has already been extended the assurance by the respondent No. 4 for his appointment in future. Hence, the contempt petition bears no merit at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.11.2008 ASWAL