IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 188 of 2006 Km. Mamta Bora D/o Sri Diwan Singh Bora R/o Chauk-Bazaar, Khetikhan, Post Khetikhan, District Champawat. ………….. Petitioner versus 1. Mr,. S.K. Maheshwari, Director of Secondary Education, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Mr. D.S. Rautela, Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Division, Nainital. ………………. Respondents Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble P.C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining disobedience of this Court’s order dated 21.04.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 1267 (S/S) of 2004, whereby following direction were issued by the Court: “Since selection on the post of teachers has already taken place by now, pursuant to the impugned advertisement, this court does not prefer to quash the entire selection of teachers and prefers to pass an appropriate order for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner and, therefore, I decline to interfere so far as prayer No. 1 is concerned. However, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order for selection / appointment of the petitioner as an L.T. grade teacher in Biology subject an any vacant seat within a period of one month after obtaining certified copy of this order.” 3) The respondent No. 2 in response to the notice issued by this Court had filed an affidavit enclosing the copy of the order dated 22.05.2006, passed in compliance of the aforesaid order. The last paragraph of the order passed by the respondent No. 2, in compliance of above order, reads as under: **lsok fu;ekoyh esa iq:"k ,oa efgyk 'kk[kk;sa vyx vyx laoxZ fu/kkZfjr gksus ds dkj.k dsoy iq:"kks dks gh ckyd fo|ky;ksa esa vkSj efgykvks dks ckfydk fo|ky;ksa esa fu;qfDr;k nh xbZ gS @ nh tkrh gSaA bl izdkj dq0 eerk cksjk dks fu;qfDr muds de xq.kakd gksus ls ugh nh tk ldrh] D;ksfd muds izR;kosnu 8 ebZ 2006 esa muds }kjk ekax dh xbZ gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnuakd 21 vizSy 2006 }kjk mUgs jktdh; dU;k b.Vj dkyst [ksrh[kku ¼pEikor½ o vU; esa fu;qfDr iznku dh tk;A dq0 eerk cksjk }kjk dsoy ckfydk fo|ky; esa fu;qfDr pkgh gSA muds xq.kkad de gksus ls mUgs fu;qfDr nsuk lEHko ugha gSA vr% izR;kosnu vLohdkj djrs gq, fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA** 4) In view of the Annexure C.A.–1 to the counter affidavit, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the concerned authority in compliance of the Court’s order dated 21.04.2006, it cannot be said if the respondents have committed any wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.04.2006. Therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are discharged. (Urgency Application No. 10336 of 2006 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.: 21st August, 2006 H. Negi