Full Text
Translation output
A-60
% 30.09.2011
Present : Mr.S.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for the respondent.
+CONT. CAS (C) No 759/2011 & CM No. 18435/2011 (stay)
*
The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition. He has drawn attention of this Court to para 16 of the
% 30.09.2011
Present : Mr.S.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate for the respondent.
+CONT. CAS (C) No 759/2011 & CM No. 18435/2011 (stay)
*
The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition. He has drawn attention of this Court to para 16 of the
JUDGMENT
of this
Court rendered in W.P.(C) No. 21/2000 on 15.12.2010; the said para reads as under:-
"It, therefore, need no elaboration that failure to abide by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this court in the aforenoticed binding judicial precedents would render the authorities liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act"
His contention is that the failure on the part of the public department to abide by their rules and guidelines amounts to a contempt; his plain contention is that on 08.09.2011, the
Government of India, Ministry of justice had for the selection to the post of Special Secretary in the department of Legal Affairs notified that personal interaction with the candidates would be done; further contention is that as per the procedure of the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) unless and until it has been specifically provided for in the recruitment rules no interview should be held. Contention being that the respondent i.e. Cabinet
Secretary of Government of India is guilty of contempt.
The petitioner appears to be oblivious of the law of contempt. r
~
2011:DHC:9818
>
There is no willful breach or disobedience of any undertaking or directions of any Court. Para 16 as highlighted above is wholly inapplicable; it refers to judicial precedents; contention of the petitioner is founded upon certain guidelines of the Departmental
Promotion Committee; those have purportedly been violated; that apart the complete document (Annexure P-10) has not also been filed; it is in piecemeal. This petition is clearly frivolous. It is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 a
L
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
·~
I
2011:DHC:9818
Court rendered in W.P.(C) No. 21/2000 on 15.12.2010; the said para reads as under:-
"It, therefore, need no elaboration that failure to abide by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this court in the aforenoticed binding judicial precedents would render the authorities liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act"
His contention is that the failure on the part of the public department to abide by their rules and guidelines amounts to a contempt; his plain contention is that on 08.09.2011, the
Government of India, Ministry of justice had for the selection to the post of Special Secretary in the department of Legal Affairs notified that personal interaction with the candidates would be done; further contention is that as per the procedure of the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) unless and until it has been specifically provided for in the recruitment rules no interview should be held. Contention being that the respondent i.e. Cabinet
Secretary of Government of India is guilty of contempt.
The petitioner appears to be oblivious of the law of contempt. r
~
2011:DHC:9818
>
There is no willful breach or disobedience of any undertaking or directions of any Court. Para 16 as highlighted above is wholly inapplicable; it refers to judicial precedents; contention of the petitioner is founded upon certain guidelines of the Departmental
Promotion Committee; those have purportedly been violated; that apart the complete document (Annexure P-10) has not also been filed; it is in piecemeal. This petition is clearly frivolous. It is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 a
L
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
·~
I
2011:DHC:9818