(Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 14-18 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2806-2810 of 2017 With Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2805 of 2017
Rajeev Kumar and Others ___________________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
Amir Subhani and Others ________________________ Respondent(s).
Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 14-18 of 2018; Civil Appeal No. 2806-2810 of 2017; Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 22 of 2018; and Civil Appeal No. 2805 of 2017, decided on May 8, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 14-18 Of 2018 in C.A. No. 2806-2810/2017:
1. Heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned senior learned counsel and Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shivam Singh, appearing for the respondents.
2. After hearing the persuasive arguments of Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, we find it difficult to see any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents. However, we feel that in the interest of justice the dispute needs a little clarification so that there can be a quietus to the long drawn litigation. At paragraph 10 of our judgment dated 14-9-20171, we made it clear that 133 candidates shall also form part of the 1035 candidates referred to in the judgment at paragraph 9. The only dispute now remains is whether those 133 candidates who had cleared the physical efficiency test conducted in the year 2006 should now be subjected to the physical efficiency test, for the implementation of our judgment dated 14-9-20171. It is not in dispute that in respect of selection to the post of sub-inspectors commenced in the year 2004, in the case of 186 candidates, they were subjected only to medical fitness test in the process of appointment since they had already cleared the physical efficiency test in the year 2006. Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel submits that this was only in pursuance to orders passed by the High Court and this Court.
3. We do not find any justification in taking a different stand in the case of 133 candidates who also have cleared the physical efficiency test in the year 2006. Therefore, at the time of their process of appointment in the year 2017/2018, they need only to be subjected to the same test undergone by 186 candidates.
4. Subject to the above clarification, the contempt petition is dismissed.
5. We make it clear that this order is only in respect of selection referred in our order dated 14-9-20171.
6. Pending applications, if any, are also stand disposed of.
Contempt Petition (C) No. 22/2018 in C.A. No. 2805/2017:
7. In view of order2 passed in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 14-18 Of 2018 in C.A. Nos. 2806-2810/2017, this Contempt Petition is also dismissed.
I.A. Nos. 29471/2018 in Contempt Petition(C0 No. 22/2018 & I.A. No. 29683/2018 in Contempt Petition (c) Nos. 14-18/2018:
8. In view of order dated 14.09.2017 in Chandra Gupta Kumar v. State of Bihar1, applications for impleadment are dismissed. However, we make it clear that dismissal of the applications shall not stand in the way of the applicants making an appropriate representation before the competent authority and we permit them to do so.
———
1 Chandra Gupta Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1162
2 Set out in paras 1 to ##, above.
