High Court Of ChhattisgarhCONT/1265/2018disposed off

Keshwar Pratap Rajwade v. Tulika Prajapati

2019-01-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1265 of 2018 Keshwar Pratap Rajwade S/o Ghananand Rajwade Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Vishnupur, Nagar, District Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

Tulika Prajapati Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Koria, Baikunthpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Arun Sao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/01/2019

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the order dated 13/09/2018 passed in WPS No. 6011/2018.

2. While disposing off the writ petition this Court has directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and while deciding the representation they would take into consideration the conditions and the category of the petitioner. Respondents have now filed their reply and along with their reply they have enclosed the document (Annexure R-1) dated 17/01/2018. Vide the said order the respondents have rejected the representation on the ground that the post which they reserved for handicapped in the present recruitment process was for the people that are hearing impaired whereas the petitioner in the present case was orthopedic handicapped. Moreover, the representation has also been rejected on the

ground that the State Government itself on an earlier occasion directed that all the recruitment even from the waiting list should be completed at any cost by 31/07/2018. On this count, also the petitioner's name placed in the waiting list at serial No. 2 could not be considered.

3. Given the said fact that respondents have decided the representation, this Court is of the opinion that substantial compliance of the order has been made. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents, he would be at liberty to challenge the same by way of a fresh writ petition. The conditions which the petitioner intends to raise in this petition would not be those which could be taken into consideration in exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

4. The contempt petition accordingly stands disposed off with the aforesaid liberty.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit