IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 202 of 2006 Jameel Ahmad …Petitioner Versus Surendra Kumar Maheshwari & others …Respondents Sri Khalil Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Dated: 22.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition the petitioner has prayed for calling the opposite party in person and punishing him for committing willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2006 (S/S), Jameel Ahmad versus State of Uttaranchal and others. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.08.2003 reads as follows: “For the above reasons only those petitioners who have obtained Moallim-E-Urdu certificate before 11.08.1997 will be entitled to proper relief in this petition. Since the candidates who were selection pursuant to advertisement dated 16.06.2002 issued by respondent no. 2 have not been impleaded as the respondents in this petition and, therefore, no relief in regard to the said advertisement is being granted to the petitioners. The petition, therefore, succeed partly and a writ in the nature of mandamus direction and commanding the respondents to recognize the certificate of Moallim-E-Urdu equivalent to B.T.C. (Urdu) for the recruitment against the appropriate posts of those petitioners who have obtained certificate prior to 11.08.1997. No order as to costs.” The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination held on 20.05.2006. As the name of the petitioner could not appear in the select list, therefore he could not be called for interview. Respondent no. 6 was issued show cause notice and he has filed relevant papers indicating therein that the petitioner appeared in the Written Examination and he was allotted the provisional admission card with Roll No. P-30. His code number has also been mentioned in the provisional admission card as 740. The respondent has also annexed the photocopy of the provisional admission card, which indicates that the petitioner was allotted Roll No. P-30 with Code No. 740. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at earlier stage that the petitioner did not have the opportunity to appear in the examination, but this contention does not carry any force in the light of the annexures annexed along with explanation filed by Sri Satya Narayan, Apar Shiksha Adhikari, who was the then posted in Udham Singh Nagar at the time of written examination. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any justification to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Annexure-3 annexed along with explanation filed by Sri Satya Narayan indicates that the petitioner has obtained 65 marks, while other persons who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, have been given appointment. I am not supposed to interfere with this aspect of the matter at this stage. However, if the petitioner has any grievance for the aforesaid reasons, he may avail alternative remedy by adopting the legal forum. With the aforesaid observation, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. The personal attendance of Sri Satya Narayan, who has appeared before this Court, is exempted. The record, which has been summoned from the office of District Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar and is kept in sealed cover in the office of the Registrar, be also returned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP