^•n ^r- ' ^;'^' Gf-^ .-'•'"' c^^ -I- IN THE HIGH COUia' OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 ."•-"-"' Contempt Case (0 No:^6c: /2.010. (Arising out of order dated 1.07.10 passed in writ petition (S) No. 3076/2010 by Hon'ble High Court.) PETITIONER: Tej Kumar Verma, son of Shri D.S.Verma, aged about 45 years, V^--- O ..^ residence ofVerma Para, Village Post "^;\ -S:(y^'J^'J" and Tahsil District Durg, Chhattisgar -^' Respondents (Contemnors) Versus 1. 2. A K.R.Pisda, Commissioner, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. k-C.^JdsJdn _. E-, District Education Officer, Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OFTHE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT. ^^ 3~£T '<ii^i<?1<), anly'is, [°«yiiy'4,< ..(^W:..-...^x..©...t^-R.60/"' "^ 200 an^r iT5R? (1pf3?^rj 31^! q? 1?stW ^afT 3H^?T SffflJef) TCmR^ritgsn^n abN^41Tf 'WtT?Tt* ^f f^l3t •^>(^T< ^aiRmsii^r ^BTHon'oie'Slin ManinaranBoliaiT snnvastava.j. 28^9-2011 Shri Om P.Sahu, counset for thjs petitioner. Shri Shantanu Kumar, counsell This petition has been fried by| order dated 1/7/2010 passed in W.P| for ihe respondent. the petitioner atteging willful disobedience of (S) No.307/2010. it is submittea by ieamed counsel for the petitioner that the r^spondent / contemnorwas directed by ihis Court to decide the claim of the petiti sner for appoinfment within a perioci of three months from the ctate of receipt of t(ie representation, whereafter, the petltioner submitted representation before the ^-espondent / contemnor No.1 on 12/7/2010 but the decision was not taken on his specified in the order which ted to fii reply, it has been stated that the claiih of the petitioner has been decided and the petiUoner has been kept at serial No.1 Karmi, Grade - lil. He submlts that (he aforesaid decision has been taken at the Government ievel bv the School communicated to the department i.e per the aforesaid decision.against t|ie vacant post on account of non-joining of selected candidates. the petitioner appointment against the vacancies petitioner. Whether such a decision Irepresentation even after expiry ofthe period ing of this contempt petition and now, in the O in the propcsai for appointment as Shik^ia Education Department which has been Urban Administration and Development As and ofter candidates are proposed to be appointed. This Court had directed ttie ijespondsnt to consider petitioners claim for appointment and it appears that the ^iatter was taken up by ttie Siate Government 1 to consider ail such cases and as m|any as 14 pereons have been proposed for if any, which inciudes the name of the edresses the grievance of the petitioner may be on.e thing. However, thts Court }iad cieariy stated that no opinion has baen ^, y^'-^T^- -!S/140—2/201l—1,50,000. 'iSt ss -(-- vtww aiNitft ^5[ '<4i-4ici*(, tSixily'Ko, I^c'iiyy fc....C^.^...(CJ..±tL^^^tD 2b0 '^ sn^r ^PPF (<yfj«<<^E[) an^! w ft-ii* (W 311^1 spClNi' Deepti wiiWHtoai^n 3 aiti expressed on merits. Therefore, i Rute is discharged. However, the such remedy as may be avaitabte td 25W2011 passed by the State Gove| With the aforesaid observatitons <oi*ii<'i41i ii'Ktl' 'iifyS <fa^i< ^r siRn sii^i ai|i nbTinclined tb proceed Tufther in the matter. p^tttioner would be at iibeny to take recourse io hlm under the isw in the light of order dated tnment. >, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge