9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch). In WP No. 560 of 1979 by order dated 6-10-1988 the Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect in terms of the amended Rules as unconstitutional; it accordingly quashed the list and directed preparation of the seniority list afresh to determine the inter se seniority on that basis and to grant promotion to the appellants within the specified time. The same order came to be reiterated by order of another Division Bench dated 9-9-1989 made in WP No. 1074 of 1980. It was further reiterated in the order dated 22-3-1990. When the seniority list came to be prepared, the contempt proceedings were initiated under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gyaneshwar case and as some confusion prevailed with the non-petitioners on account of that, they could not comply this order. However, the non-petitioners are directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 22-3-1990 by giving effect to the ratio of the decision that has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal case and the seniority list should be prepared as directed in the judgment in Kailash Chand Goyal case and promotions should be accorded accordingly. If this order is not complied with within a period of six months from today, the petitioner will be free to move a contempt petition afresh against the non-petitioners. 4. The State had filed appeal against these directions. A preliminary obje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
