1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Contempt Case {Civin No.L .^/...../2010 ^ ^" fe; APPLICANTS: 1, D. R. Thakur Aged About 59 yrs. S/o Shri L.R. Thakur Presently working as Circle Organizer Block /Education /\Y^ ' A^ office, Bhanupratappur District Kanker i^ . ^' 'office, ^K^ (CG') .%>' /!V^' 2. • Atul Pandey, Aged About 49 yrs, S/o Late Shri Vibhuti Bhushan Pandey, Presently working as Circle Otganizer, Office of Block Education Officer, Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3../ 4, 5. ^ B.L. Saral Aged About 51 years S/o Shri Sonsai Saral, Presently working as Circle Organizer, BIock Education Office, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) G. R. Chauhan Aged About 59 years, S/o Shri Mahba Ram Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education Office, Jashpur District Jashpur (C.G.) S. Kujur, Aged About 50 yrs, S/o Late Shri Bramil Kujur, Block Education Office, Kansabel, District JashpUr (C.G.) ^ ^..f. ;..^/- ^ ,.^ ^^^^^ .^' ^. K^fc^y/' l''S^J^^^^" 6. S. K. Jangde, Aged about 52 years s/o ShriM.C. Jangde, Presently working as Circle Org^nizer Block Education Qffice, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 7. ^ B. S. Raj Aged About 47 years S/Q Shri Samar Singh Raj, Presently working as Circle Organizer, Office of Block Education Officer Mohla Distrct RajnandgaQn (C.G.) ^ Manoj Kumar Shrivastav Aged About 49 yrs. S/o Late Shri G. P. Shrivastav, Presently working as Circle Qrganizer Block -Education Office, Pali, District Korba(C.G.) ,9. V.K. Ogre Aged About 51 yrs B/o Shri K.C. Ogre Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education Office Podi Uproda District Korba (C.G.) 10. R. K. Baghele Aged About 52 yrs. S/o Shri Rajaram Baghele Presently working as Circle Organizer, Office of the assistant Commissioner, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 11. A. K. Agnihotri Aged About 45 yrs. S/o Shri R.P. Agnihotri Presently working as Circle Organizer, Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Welfare) Korba District Korba (C.G.) ^ (. ^RESPONDENTS: 12. A. K. Thakur Aged About 47 yrs. S/o Shri M.R. Thakur Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education Qffice Durgukondal District Kanker (C.G.) 13. G. K. Mishra Aged About 47 yrs. S/o Shri R.S. Mishra Presently Circle Qrgamzer, working as Field Qfficer, Jila Antavyasayi Yojna Sahkari Samiti Raipur Distarict Raipur (C.G.) 14. ' S.L. Dhritlahre Aged About 51 yrs. S/o Shri Begraha Dhritlahre Presently working as Circle Organiz0r Block Education Office Koyalibeda, District Kanker(C.G.) VERSUS 1. R.P.Mandal Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.6. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Xevier Tigga Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur(C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 12T OF THE COURTS OF .^" CONTEMFT ACT READ WITH ARTICLE^ 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. o/v HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON*BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Contempt Case (C^ No.l59of2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS D.R. Thakur&Ors. Versus R.P. Mandal & one another Petition u/S 12 of the Cpurts pf Ctontempt Act r/w ^^ of the Ccmstitotipn of India Appearance: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal witli Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 11.4.2011) Heard. 2. This petition has been flled by the petitioners aUeging willful disobedience ofthe order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.22 14/08. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners argued that. the petitioners, who were working as CJrcle Organizer, were aggrievedon accomit of non-consideration of their cases in the matt.er of promotion to the post of Block Education Officer in accordaiice witti fhe prevalent Rules known as - the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development (Gazetted) Service, Recrmtooaent -2- u' ,v Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as uthe Rules of 2006>f) and the Rules of general application known as- the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (hereinaft.er referred to as uthe Act 0/2003''). Their grievance was appreciated by tlie Court and in its final order, fhe direction was issued to tihie State Authorities to hold D.P.C. meeting for considering fhe case ofthe petitioners for promotion in accordance with law if ttiey are found within the zone of consideration on the basis of their seniority and Other relevant factors. It was further directed fhat if fhey are found suitable and fit thereon, they may be recommended for promotion to the higher post and tlie Court further directed that the needful be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably withm a period of 4 months from the date ofreceipt ofcopy ofthis order. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contended fhat fhe ojrder passed by the Court was dully communicated to fhe respondent vide representation dated 15tfa March, 2010 (Annexiire C-2). However, the respondent, iastead of considering the petitioners for promotion to the post of Block Education Officer (B.E.O.) in aecordance with the statutoiy scheme of the Rules of 2006, promoted some of the petitioners only as Area Orgaruzer, treatiiig them to be within the zone of consideration, but none of them were considered for promotion to the post of B.E.O. as provided under the Rules and instead, proceeded to fill-up the vacant post by resorting to earlier practice of drawing ofiRcers from other r ^ -3- \ IVv cadres and one such order was passed on 14.7.2010 (Annexure C-3). 5. Leamed counsel for tlie petitioners furfher contended that the respondent was completely oblivious and unmindlul of the spuit of the order of the Court, which was required tp be complied with. In his submission, a letter dated 4.6.2CMO (Armexure C-7) of the Commissioner, S.C. & S.T. Development was sent to fhe respondent No.l/Secretary of1,he Department, clearly stating that the spirit of.the order of fhe Court as also the statutory scheme of the Rules of 2006 required consideration of all eligible Circle Organizers who have completed 5 years of service, for promotion against the vacancies existing in the cadre of B.E.O., even at'ter promoting all the Area Organizer. Even fhereafter, fhe respondent, while holding D.P.C., considered some of tiie petitioners, that too, pnly for promotion to the post of Area Organizer without considering their cases for promotion to the post of B.E.O. He fherefore, submits that by such an act, respondent has acted in willful disobedience of the order passed , by this Court as the action of the respondent has not been taken- up tn accordance with the law as directed by tliis Court in its order dated 10th March, 20 10. . 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent submits tliat the respondent has acted bona fide towards complianee of the order passed by the Court He submits that a D.P.C. meeting :.-4.-. was convened on 11.8.2010 to consider the cases ofpromotion to the post ofArea Organizer as per fhe seniority list existing as on 1.4.2009 and the oflEicers who, were wifhin the zone of consideration according to seniority list^ were considered and some of the names were kept mcirculation for want of availability of confidential report. He submits fhat fhe respondents authonties have acted bona fide towards compliance offhe order of the Court to the best of their understanding and there was no intention to disobey or flout the order of the Court. He further subinits that if the Court finds that fhere has been any shortcoming in the compliance of the order of the Court, respondent tenders iinconditional apology. 7. A perusal of the order dated 10th Mach, 2010 passed by fhis Court in W.P. (S) No.2214/08 shows that the Court took note of the grievances of the petitioners fhat despite statutory provisions prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules of 2006, no meeting of D.P.C. has been held to consider the case of Circle Oi^ani%r/Area Organizer for promotion to the post of B.E.O. and in para-8 ofits order, it proceeded to observe that the State Aufhorities are required to hold the meeting ofthe DPC every year to consider fhe cases of Circle Organizers/Ai'ea Organizers also for promotion to the post ofB.E.O. as per fhe Schedule (under Rule 6) oftJie Rules of 2006. In the light of the aforesaid consideration of ftie grievance and provision contatned m the Rules, fhe Court allowed ttie petition and directed the State Auftiorities to hold DPC for .fg-^ %.^ ^^::,^ '^^®^'" -5- . >'. \y ^ considering the case of the petitioners for promotlon in accordance with law if they are found wiftiin the zone of consideration on the basis of their seniority and pfher relevant factors, The Rules of2006 which have been placed on record as Annexure C-4, along with rejoinder, depict the statutoiy scheme of promotion to the post of B.E.O. A conjoint reading of Schedule -II 8s Schedule -IV shows that Circle Organizers are entitied to be considered for promotion to the post of Area Organizer and at fhe saiae time, m case of existence of vacancy of B.E.O., even after exhaustmg the list of Area Organizer, fhey may be fiUed-up from amongst eligible Cu-cle Organizer who have completed 5 years of service. True it is that the normal channel of promotion of Circle Orgaiiizer is to the post ofArea Organizer, m para.-S offhe order dated 10th March, 2010, it was clearly recorded that tlie State Authorities are rcquired to hold the meeting of DPC every year to consider the cases of Circle Organizers/Area Organizers also for promotion to the post ofB.E.O. as per Schedule appended to the Rules of 2006. The Aufhorities were, therefore, under an obligation to comply fhe order of the Court in its true spirit It was m this background of the statutory rules and the observation made in para-8 and 13 of the order dated 10th March, 2010 that the Court directed respondents to hold DPC for promotion in accordance with law. 8. Leamed counsel for the respondent submits that there was no specific direction of the Coiirt that in spite of the vacancies ^y^ . -6- "<.. vv $ reaming even after exhausting the Ust of Area Organizer, Circle Organizer should be considered for promotion to fhe post of B.E.O, cannot be accepted. If ftlis is fhe Linderstanding of the officers who have pretended to coinply with the prder of fhe Court, to say the least, it is complete misunderstanding and misconstruction of the order of the Court In fact, fhe Commissioner, S.T. & S.T. Development, vide his letter dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure C-7) made elaborate proposal to the Ste-te Govt., keeping m mind the order passed by fhis Court and statutory scheme of the Rules.It is unfortunate that in spite of such a communication, this aspect was ignored while considering tlie case of the petitioners for promotion. The Authorities are required to be careful, vigilant, while complytng wifti the order of fhe Court.It appears that while holding D.P.C. and considering the cases of eligible Gircle Organizers/petitioners, in purported. compliance of the order pf fhe Coiirt, the Authorities completely failed to understand fhe true and eorrect spirit of the order and direcUon of this Court. 9. The order of the Court required the respondent to consider tfae cases of the petitioners to the postofB.E.Q.as per fhe rules. However, the circumstances in which all thishashappened, I ani not inclined to hold it to be a case of deliberate/willful disobedience, but, I have to record that it is a case of disobedience offhe order ofthe Court. \&.. ^s^' ^ £ Praveen -7- \v ^ 10. The respondent/contemnor has tendered unconditional apology before this Court. Taking into consideration that an exercise was undertaken to consider fhe case of the petitioners for promotion, ftiough, completely misconstruing the orders and direction of fhis Court, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in fhe contempt matter. However, now, the respondent shall take expeditious steps strictly in accordance with the then existing Rules. \ 11. It is made clear that fhe non-compliance offhe order ofthe Court shall be viewed seriously. 12. Wtth the afbresaid observations, fhe petidon is finalfy disposed of. Sd/- MamndraM.banSUrivastava Judge ^-/'