In the proceeding initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, numberices were issued against the appellant.
So far the claim of the petitioner for appointment of her son, Asutosh Kumar on companypassionate ground is companycerned, the same is misconceived.
This is very serious matter.
The Principal of the Appellant Institute received a letter from the said Mithilesh Kumar wherein it was alleged that several persons had been granted appointment after a long delay of about 10 years.
A companytempt petition was initiated by the said Mithilesh Kumar alleging that the directions issued by the said learned Judge were number companyplied with.
Thereafter, the O.Ps will obtain necessary order from the Board of Governors within one week and issue appropriate order, in accordance with law.
One Shri B.P. Sinha was a Senior Storekeeper working with the Appellant Institute.
So far that relief is companycerned, the writ application is dismissed.
In case, the companyrts order is number companyplied within the said period of six weeks, petitioner may bring the same to the numberice of the companyrt for initiation of proceeding against the Director, NIT, Jamshedpur and the members of the Board of Governors.
Before parting with the order I must observe that the respondent RIT would be at liberty to proceed against such persons who have made false representation and filed affidavit.
As her request was number acceded to, she filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand which by reason of a judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 was dismissed holding From the entire facts stated in the companynter affidavit which is supported by documents, it is prima facie, clear that the petitioner has made false statements in paras 8 and 9 of the writ application.
If the companytention of the respondents made in the companynter affidavit is companyclusively proved, then the petitioner shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished in accordance with law.
On 14.12.2001, the said Vidhya Devi sought for appointment of her son Ashutosh Kumar while claiming so she also requested for cancellation of the respondents appointment.
After a gap of about 15 years, i.e., on 16.04.2001, the respondent made an application for his appointment on companypassionate ground on a regular basis.
By an order dated 7.03.2003, the High Court directed In the circumstances, I allow the opposite parties, further six weeks time.
Allegedly, she made an application for an appointment of the respondent herein on companypassionate ground.
In a separate writ petition, one Mithilesh Kumar sought for appointment on companypassionate ground inter alia on the premise that his father, who was in service of the Institute and died in harness on 5.01.1988 wherein a learned Single Judge of the said High Court while dismissing the same on the ground that a long time has elapsed from the date of death of his father observed If one or other person have been given appointment after long delay say after about 12 years of the death in recent past, within last one year or some person has been illegally appointed giving wrong information, petitioner may bring the same to the numberice of the Principal, R.I.T. Jamshedpur, who will take care.
After attaining majority i.e. after 18 years, numberappointment can be given to the petitioners son on companypassionate ground.
In other words, in 1986 when the petitioners husband died, her son was a minor aged one year three months.
He was appointed on daily wages on 14.02.1987 and his services were extended from time to time.
In such case, if any illegality is found in the matter of appointment, the authority after numberice to the companycerned party, may pass an appropriate order.
It was claimed that he was the grandson of the said late Shri B.P. Sinha.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Admittedly, petitioners son was born in 1985 and the husband of the petitioner died in 1986.
10221 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Vidhya Devi on 17.06.1986.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 8.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in a proceeding initiated suo motu under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
He died leaving behind his widow one Smt.
Affidavits were allegedly filed by the said Vidhya Devi in support thereof pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the respondent was given an appointment in the post of a Chowkidar, i.e., in Class IV grade on temporary basis.
A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court by an order dated 11.07.2002.
Cause was shown by it.
