\. •X, c; t-i s' §: r1-s- "s !-i.y 1-! (D 3- 6 1-i Q ^ 8 0V ^B' M- 1 » o ^ ~l-i )u-t 1 1—J >-1 r'.i- o a; 's" l-=tt 1-i 1 ^. '73' h?^^ h»j ^ Fi: p 1-Af yfii I- 1-i y^ .- v^s ^'- * \ "" C7 ^\ '^ yt: "^•.""^ 0 h^ * r^f'- a -1 & t^,^ f"1y r-I- rt" ^ , "-.< <D &- fci' l.,Jo- ^i & r-1- (a i^-i o !:: 4» 01 t<- B! w '-> o •--3 g' ^' i^- a ^ (M w o SB 3 h-I ffto ?' s' )-=»l -> os (Bp. !3' 1 t.1 w fe' h^ a> Hr6 K,wjg i/*^> ftr' 1°:t° [BrtE'i Tfgt «s & w fe" -+--1. -SGS. s^i qn |c;-<i<ti HSIT 3TT^?T^)Hieti &. 7EE[ «4iq|<n*l, ®Tliy<|(o,Ti>|c)|yi|< -—..<^^.;.^..^d[^;l&^/'^ii. STI^T Traq? ('yil'l'^T) WITWdftd 311^1 —.L_ ora^nNtoga'iireBr,- SB : Hon'ble Shri Wlanindra Mohan 14-09-2011 Shri T. K. Tiwgri, counsel for Shri Praveen Das,counsel fo Heard. The applicant has filed this ^ order dated 12-08-2010 passed by wherein contemnor was directed to take appropriate decision in accorda( claim within an outer limit of four mo| of this order. It was further observed still remains unredressed, he wouldl remedy as may be available to him Learned counsel for the appl vide order dated 20-04-2011 (Anne> applicant on untenable grounds, ev| vacant and the claim of the applican] only one post of backlog vacancy re| available and the applicant does not[ submits that the non-applicant has by this Court regarding taking deci^ time stipulated. ^ On the other hand, learned that when the Court's order was <<ll«<i<1<ill ll'K-if 'if fS^S <fil^l< ^; sifipt aiii^i Shrivastava, J, ie applicant. the non-applicant. 3|etition alleging willful disobedience of tfiis Court in W.P.(S)No.4481 of 2010, |;onsider the case of the applicant and ice with law, with regard to applicant's ihths from the date of receipt of a copy ^hat in case, grievance ofthe applicant |be at 'iberty to take recourse to such uhder the law. |cant submitted that the non-applicant, ure R-4), has rejected the claim of the en though, number of posts are lying has been rejected on the ground that >erved for Scheduled Tribe category is belong to the said category. He further ailed to comply with the order passed ion on the applicant's claim within the ;ounsel for the non-applicant submits reiteived, the Directorate entered into the S— VS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ?y. ?=T T<{WW^, ®Tily'ie,fsldiy^-t "^,200 / Tumane the Court's order and for the dela unconditional apology and prays for i(;ondoning the delay. Taking into consideration the for the parties, averments made consideration that for the delay unconditional apology and that the the applicant vide order dated 20-1] further in the matter. Rule is therefd at liberty to take recourse to such re| the law, in case, he feels aggrieved| I' caused, the non-applicant tendered R-4). |submission made by learned counsel |in the reply and further taking into lcaused, the non-applicant tendered fion-applicant has decided the case of (4-2011, I amnot inclined to proceed |re discharged. The applicant would be ^iedy as may be available to him under by order dated 20-04-2011 (Annexure With the aforesaid observatiofi, the petition is finally disposed off. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava judge <liu'fl<l^hrg»TCCT,dd-lM'liar—FS/l4l>—2/2011—l ,50,000. .^ SII^T Traq7 ('yi^'i v 3II^T^n^IW wn sii^i wqra TOiiw^iteisn^i _^_. cbici^«fli+<H<nf ^f 'fel<il Tf^^R ^'sifaHsii^F r- correspondence with the Joint Direi perused and after collecting r committee was convened, and the 19-04-2011 and the decision has be (Annexure R-4). Learned counsel averments made in the reply, sub caused in complying with the Couri various correspondences, which we the Joint Director, shows that all atti )r and the records of the case were :essary information, departmental •after, his case was considered on i taken vide order dated20-04-2011 r the non-applicant referring to the its that the delay, which has been irder, is not intentional, but from the • made between the Directorate and ipts have been made to comply with