IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Contempt Petition No. 35/2006 Virendra Dutt .. Petitioner/Applicant. Versus Sri Sanjay Kumar District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal and others .. Opp. Parties/Contemnors. Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the O.Ps. Dated: 19-11-2008 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition the petitioner has prayed for summoning the respondents 1 to 4 before this Court and initiate contempt proceedings against them for willful and deliberate disobedience of this Court’s order dated 23-12-2005 contained in Annexure- 1 to the writ petition No. 970/2005 (S/S) Virendra Dutt Vs. District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal and others. 2- Heard Sri Chetan Joshi, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3- The respondents in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit filed on 31.3.2006, have averred as follows:- “That the contents of paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the contempt petition are wrong misconceived and are denied. It is submitted that immediately after receiving the copy of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court the consideration was initiated and it transpired that ‘the then District Magistrate namely Sri Pratap Singh was posted as District Magistrate till 29-6-1994 and was relieved w.e.f. 30-6-1994 and a day before being relieved the 2 then District Magistrate issued the said select list dated 29-6-1994 even without mentioning the class, nature and pay scale of the appointments and the said select list was issued without adhering to the process and in that regard the District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal appointed A.D.M. (Project) Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal as Inquiry Officer under the order dated 29-9-1995 and the Inquiry Officer namely Sri A.K. Bajpayee submitted a report on 25.3.1996 stating that the procedure prescribed for appointment has not been adhere to. The District Magistrate found that the enquiry report is incomplete and vide its letter dated 25-5-1996 directing to submit the detailed enquiry report. Consequently the Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed inquiry report clearly stating that the procedure applied for the said select list cannot be treated to be a valid one and, therefore, the District Magistrate vide its order dated 31.12.1996 set aside the select list dated 29-6-1994. True copies of order dated 20- 9-1995, inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer and the letter dated 25.5.1996, are Annexure C.A. 3, 4 and 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner prayed for appointment on the basis of the said list and when transpired that the said select list was cancelled in the year 1996 it would not be valid to make appointment on the basis of the said list. Yet for coming to a correct conclusion the matter was investigated through the Chief Development Officer, Tehri Garhwal who submitted the report stating that the select list dated 29-6-1994 was cancelled vide letter dated 31.12.1996 passed by the then District Magistrate and Sri Praveen Uniyal and Sri Tota Singh have not been given appointment in pursuance of the 3 select list dated 29-6-1994. Photo copy of the report dated 23.2.2006 submitted by Chief Development Officer Tehri Garhwal is filed Annexure No. CA 6. It is further submitted that as regards the appointment of Sri Virendra Datt is concerned it is submitted that Sri Virendra Datt was also informed that he cannot be given appointment on the basis of the select list dated 29-6-1994 as a said list was set aside by the then District Magistrate vide its order dated 31.12.1996.” 4- It is thus clear that the select list was cancelled in the year 1996 vide order dated 31-12-1996 passed by the then District Magistrate. It has also been averred in the aforesaid paragraph of the counter affidavit that the petitioner Virendra Datt was also informed by the authorities that the appointment letter could not be given on the basis of the select list dated 29- 6-1994, as the same had already been cancelled in the year 1996. 5- For the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in this contempt petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6- The contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 4