TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by reason where for the exercise of jurisdiction must be with due care and caution and for larger interest. 2. As regards, the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof," be it noted that a proceeding under the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 3 . Lord Denning [in Re Bramblevale 1969 (3) All ER 1062 lend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns as below: "It is true that Rule 9 of the Harayana Service of Engineers Class II (Public Works Department. Irrigation Branch) Rules says that the cut-off date will be the 1st of January of the concerned year and here the cut-off date will be 1.1.1980. In a situation, where a person taken an examination before the cut-off date and the result is declared after the cut-off date the above said administrative order dated 23.7.1973 clarifies as to what is to be done. In our view the said clarification is not in conflict with the statutory rules, in as much as it only states that where by the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee meets, the result is also declared, may be subsequent to the cut-off date, the person must be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner were placed in the year 1981. It has been further contended that the Government's instructions as contained in the memorandum dated 23rd July, 1973 if read with order of this Court the name of Shri RP Kumar and Shri RK Dagar ought to have been shifted to the year 1979 and the name of Sh. JP Gupta and that of the petitioner at serial Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. As a matter of fact representations were also made in the same vein wherein it has further been stated:- "Further this has been admitted by Shri Dhani Ram, under Secretary, on behalf of Government of Haryana that the order dated 15.1.1984 were issued by taking criteria of eligibility from the date of completion of exam. Thus my name stands at serial no. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contempt and resultantly therefore the application must fail. The submission of Mr. Mahabir Singh appears to be of some significance. The proceeding in the Concepts of Courts Act being quasi-criminal in nature and the burden being in the nature of criminal prosecution, namely to prove beyond reasonable doubt as noticed above, requirements of the statute thus has a pivotal role to play. On merits as well Mr. Mahabir Singh contended that the petitioner is confusing the issue by treating the direction as a mandate for his promotion whereas this Court had directed the respondents to consider the promotion by treating the petitioner to be qualified on the cut-off date on 1.1.1980. There was no mandate as such to offer promotion to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The name of Sh. Chhotu Ram does not find place in promotion zone, on the basis of inclusion of his name in the ranking list as on 1.1.80 prepared as per directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 8.10.99. There were 5 (five) vacancies for promotion in the source of AMIE/BE in the year 1980 and there is no dispute regarding number of vacancies. The officers promoted in the year 1980, S/Sh. BS Sethi, KR Chopra, RP Kumar, SK Sodhi, RK Dagar beside Sh. JP Gupta promoted in 1981 for want of vacancy in 1980 are senior to the appellant Sh. Chhutu Ram. The ranking list from the year 1971 to 1999 were prepared after inviting objections of the concerned officers in view of the directions of the Apex Court dated 20.9.91. These lists were also ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|