' Single Bench ‘ CORT O TTIH AT BLASPUR Hon‘ble'Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ. Contempt Petition N'o 72 OF 2007 Sushn Thanwarm Kaxvart aged about 56 years D/o Shn Sawai Ram Kalvart Teacher Tahsil (06-) Sushri Malti Yadav. aged about 57 D/o. Late Shri Roopchand (Teacher) Superintendent, Ashram Mutanpal, B!ock Tahsil Jagdaipur, Disirict ‘ Bastar (CG. .) Kanya Ashram Dhanora Buapur District Dantnwada years, Yadav, ‘ Kanya Bastan’ar, I Kaushal Kishore Pathak, aged ‘about' 52 years, S’on of Shri R.Sf Pathak, Teacher Kanya Ashram Dlmrapa! Block Tokapal Tahsrl Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG) _ Sushri Sangeeta Mohanti; Secretary, Mata Rukmam Sewa Sansthan Drmrapa! Tahsrl Jagdalpur Dustnct " Bastar (C G } BL Thakur Commrssuoner Scheduied r Caste Schedu‘e Tribes and Backward ' Classes Weifare Department Unrversriy Premises Rarpur (C G) L K Gupta Additiona! Director , Scheduled Caste Schedule Tnbes and Backward Classes Welfare Department Unrversrty Premises Rarpur (C G ) g , Jltendra Gupta Assrstant “Commrssroner Tribal Welfare Department Jagdalpur DrstrrctBastar . (C G) Ganesh ShankarMlshra Collector . .I, 'Bastar Jagdatpur Drstrrct Bastar (C G ) s K R Plsda Collector Dantewada District South Bastar (C G) ' HIGH U F CHHASGAR I '" / \ Applicants? V 1 ‘. 2. 3. Vs; Contem’noris' \ 1 . Present: ‘Shn P KC Tlwarl Sr Counsei With Shrl Rakesh Thakur ' ‘ counsel for the petmoners ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29m March 2007) The complainants are before me inter alia alleging that the respondents in thisporrtempt petition have deliberateiy disobeyed the orders and directions issued by this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.148’ii2000 dated 02:01 .2006. ,(2) The writ petition fled by the complainants had questioned the validity or otherWise of the order dated 27 01 2000 passed by the respondents terminating the sewices of the petitioners on the ground of irregularity in appointment because of over age/under age/ lack of necessary qualifications (3) ~ Learned Single Judge after considering the case of the parties ‘ to the’li‘Shasicome to the conciusion that the respondents are not justified in > passing the order Ahnexures P/8 to P/40 dated 27.01.2000 and accordingly quashed the same. (4) Vi The petitioners allege in this contempt petition that after the disposal of the writ‘ petition, the respondents once again have pasSed the order dated 09.02.2007 informing the petitioners that they are Over aged and the efore they are not entitled to continue With the appomtment This action of the respondents, :according to the petitioners, is in Violation of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. g ' (5) l do not find any merit in the contention canvassed by the petitioners for the reason that while disposing of the writ petition the Court had merely quashed the’order passed by the respondents dated 27012000. The Court had not issued any further directions in absence of any direction issued f by this Court in my opinion it cannot be said that the respondents have i committed an act of contempt by issuing thernoticeiorder to the petitioners l ‘ 9M dated 09.02.2007. ‘In that view of the matter, i do not intend to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the'petitioners. Accordingly, the petition _ is rejected However, liberty ls reserved to the petitioners, if they so desire,"’t!o question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the respondents ‘ dated 27.01.2000 before the appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly.