IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 380 of 2010 Date of decision: June 15, 2011 Uma Devi Petitioner Versus Dr. Shashi Kant and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. B.C. Negi, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. H.K. Paul, counsel for respondent No. 2. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner that respondents No. 1 & 2 are guilty of contempt of Court. The issue pertains to the appointment of Lecturer (Hindi) in the S.D. Adarsh Sanskrit College, Dohgi, District Una, H.P. In the affidavit, filed on 10th June, 2011 by the second respondent, it is stated as follows:- “I, Dr. Bhakat Vatsal Sharma, aged 55 years, son of Shri Beni Prasad, resident of Harinilaya, Adarsh Nagar, Hamirpur Road, Una and presently working as the Principal, Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sanskrit College, Dohgi, Tehsil Bangana, District Una (HP) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the meeting of the Managing Committee of the College was held under the chairmanship of the respondent No. 3-Prof. (Mrs.) Aruna 2 Goel on 3.6.2011 and it was unanimously decided that the vacancy of Lecturer (Hindi) be advertised in the National Employment Newspaper and also in another newspaper having circulation in local area after obtaining necessary permission from the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University), New Delhi. Proceedings of the meeting were submitted by me to the Deputy Registrar (Administration), Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University, New Delhi vide my office letter No. 251/Prabandh Samiti/2010-11/8778, dated 4.6.2011 requesting them either to advertise the post themselves or to authorize the Principal of the College to advertise the post immediately.” 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2. However, this Court is constrained to make an observation that the Managing Committee of the College and also the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University), New Delhi have not been addressing the crucial issue with the required diligence. However, in view of the persuasive submission made by Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, that prompt action would be taken now to fill up the post of the Lecturer (Hindi), this Court reluctantly refrains from making any further observation in the matter. 4. There will be a direction to the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University), New Delhi to accord the required sanction in the light of the decision taken by the Managing Committee and referred to in the affidavit, within a period of two weeks. Thereafter steps for the selection shall be completed by the Managing Committee within another one month. The Managing Committee shall thus see that as and 3 when the College re-opens in August, 2011, there is a duly appointed Lecturer (Hindi) in the College. 5. With the above observations, the Contempt Petition is disposed of discharging the notice. 6. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Master, will be supplied to the second respondent during the course of the day. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice June 15, 2011 (K) ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), Judge