SBCCP No.429/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.429/2008. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1442/1999. Dr.Amar Chand Singhal Vs. Alok Mathur Date of order : November 25, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bipin Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma for the contemner-respondent. Shri Alok Mathur, contemner-respondent is present in person. **** BY THE COURT :- This contempt petition alleges wilful disobedience of the order of this court dated 14/12/2006. Operative part of the order reads thus:- "Be that as it may, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to be screened and as stated by the learned counsel for the University that they have failed to comply with the direction, to this effect the petitioners are at liberty to represent SBCCP No.429/08. 2 before the University for screening pursuant to the judgment rendered by this court on 11.10.96 in the case of Om Prakash Pareek Vs. University of Rajasthan & another (supra), as it is not disputed that they are not in service and if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible for screening and the posts are still lying vacant, they may be screened by the University. It is for the University to consider the representation so filed by the petitioners. With these observations, both the writ petitions stand disposed of." 2) Shri Bipin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his earlier contempt petition was dismissed upon respondents making statement that aforesaid judgment has been complied with but liberty was granted to file fresh contempt petition. He has therefore filed this contempt petition afresh. It was argued that the stand taken by the respondents now in reply to the present contempt petition is contrary to what they pleaded before the court in the main writ petition. It was never given out that the post was not vacant. What was contended was that petitioner failed to fulfill the requisite requirement and therefore he was not screened. 3) Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has however contended that direction of the learned Single Judge rendered in Om Prakash Pareek Vs. University of Rajasthan and another on SBCCP No.429/08. 3 11/10/1996 required one time screening of the teachers as per the records. Case of the petitioner was considered but at that time, all the available posts were consumed by persons senior to him and he could not therefore obviously be given appointment. In reply to the writ petition, respondents categorically stated that the post was not lying vacant and therefore petitioner could not be adjudged for appointment on that post. It was argued that now, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent- University to consider representation of the petitioner with the further observation that in case petitioner is found eligible for screening and the posts are still lying vacant, he may be screened. Respondents have considered his case but in view of the fact that Section 3(3) of the Rajasthan Teachers and Officers Selection and Appointment Act, 1974 which provided for appointment on ad-hoc appointment for a period of one year has been amended w.e.f. 1/1/2006 which was the delete provision of ad-hoc appointment, case of the petitioner was considered and he could not have found eligible for screening for appointment as University cannot act contrary to the statute. 4) Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of the order passed by the respondents on 22/10/2007 and the tenure of the SBCCP No.429/08. 4 direction issued by the learned Single Judge, no case is made out for commiting wilful contempt of the order of this court. The order now passed by the respondent has certainly given rise to a fresh cause of action. Remedy of the petitioner, if he is so advised, lies in challenging the aforesaid order in a fresh petition. Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices of the contempt are hereby discharged. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil