Sonullah Petitioner
versus
Parveen Daveen and others Respondents

SWP No. 2193 / 1994, decided on 13.10.2000.

Contempt of Court - Directions of the Court for consideration of the representation of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Yatch-man - Petitioner found not eligible for the post - Filed Contempt - Held : No contempt is made out - Rule Nissi discharged.

Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. S.A. Qadiri, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. M.A. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents

Heard

This Court in SWP 2193/1994 passed the following direction on 23/12/1996.

"The petitioner will file a representation to respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today and the respondent No. 2 will consider his representation in the light of rules and circular issued by him dated 5th of August, 1996, within two months from the date of receipt of this order and convey the result there of to the petitioner immediately, failing which the petitioner reserves his right to come again, if need arises."

Petitioner alleges non-compliance with this direction and prays that respondents 2 & 3 Director General Tourism and Director Tourism Kashmir be booked in contempt for failing to comply with above direction in as much as the adjustment of petitioner as Senior Yatch-man, has been declined.

Respondents have filed statement of facts wherein they allege that the petitioner is lacking the eligibility to the post of Senior Yatch-man. Persuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Court representation of petitioner was considered. It was disposed of appropriately after petitioner was found ineligible for the post. The decision was conveyed to him, thereafter he filed a contempt motion. That contempt matter (contempt petition No. 473 / 1998) was disposed of by this court on 16/12/1998 in terms of Annexure - B, holding that the respondent had committed no contempt. Therefore, on the self-same facts, second contempt petition No. 234 / 1999 cannot lie and in any case the instant motion for contempt is not maintainable.

The above direction dated 23/12/1996 of this Court in SWP No. 2193 / 1994 in terms of required the Director Tourism to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of Rules and Circular within specified time and to convey the result of consideration to petitioner promptly. Petitioner feeling that his representation was not considered filed contempt petition No. 473 / 1998. This Court on 16/12/1998 after hearing the counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter observed :

"In this view of the matter contention of the petitioner that Director has not complied with the direction is not justifiable and fact remains that the respondents have complied with the direction. However, it is provided that in case the consideration accorded is violative of petitioner’s rights, he shall be free to invoke the proper remedy whichever available to him.

Contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court this writ petition cannot lie on the self same grounds. Apart from this, petitioner is claiming appointment / promotion to the post of Senior Yatch-man, on the basis of circular dated 5/8/1996. However, this circular in effect required the senior assistant category staffers of the Tourism Department in various offices to submit affidavit / options in connection with change of cadres. It no were covers the subject of appointment / promotion tothe post of Sr. Yatch-man. Such a matter is covered by the Rules governing the filling up of post of Senior yatch-man, a technical post. The J&K Non-Gazetted Recruitment Rules provide the mode and method of recruitment to this post on the cadre of Tourism Department. It is a post which is to befilled up 100% by promotion from feeding cadre of Junior Yatch-man, on the basis of merit / seniority with five years service. Besides the prescribed qualification and a certificate from the recognised Yatching Institute is the other requirements. Respondents specifically say that the petitioner did not posses the eligibility and qualification, therefore, he could not be promoted to the post. This court while disposing of the earlier writ petition on 16/12/1996, has even examined the original record produced before the court only to observe that it indicated".... that the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Director...."

In the above circumstances no contempt is made out on merits. The Rule Nissi is discharged. Matter closed. Disposed of.