Facts
The petitioners are "land losers" whose property was acquired for Railway projects under an assurance of employment for one family member
Source reference: p. 3After the Railways failed to provide appointments, litigation ensued, leading to a 2019 Division Bench order in WPCT 74 of 2016 which directed that age-bar should not be a ground for rejection if relaxation powers existed
Source reference: p. 3-4Subsequently, on June 19, 2023, the Court directed the respondents to comply with earlier Tribunal orders by adopting the "identical process" used in the 2019 case
Source reference: p. 2The petitioners filed these contempt applications alleging that the Railways willfully violated these orders by rejecting their claims based on overage (beyond 15 years relaxation), lack of matriculation, and failure in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET)
Source reference: p. 5, 13Issues
1. Whether the alleged contemnors committed intentional and willful disobedience of the Court’s orders dated June 19, 2023, and August 09, 2023, by imposing screening criteria such as PET and educational qualifications
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 12. Whether the direction to follow an "identical process" from a previous judgment precludes the respondent from applying standard eligibility and medical fitness criteria
Source reference: p. 9 / para. 17Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle of contempt jurisdiction, which requires a finding of "intentional, deliberate and willful inaction"
Source reference: p. 10The court followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shankar Prasad Deep (2019), which established that land-loser applicants are entitled to an age relaxation of 15 years but must fulfill all other prescriptions, including educational qualifications and medical fitness
Source reference: p. 8, 12The court relied on K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006), which holds that candidates who participate in a selection process cannot challenge the criteria after being declared unsuccessful
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the 2019 order in WPCT 74 of 2016 did not grant a blanket appointment but specifically addressed the removal of the "age-bar" as an automatic disqualifier
Source reference: p. 14The alleged contemnors demonstrated that they applied a 15-year age relaxation (rendering UR candidates eligible up to 48, OBC to 51, and SC/ST to 53 years) and conducted a "fair and transparent" screening process as required by RBE No. 99/2010 and the Joint Procedure Order (JPO) of 2011
Source reference: p. 12, 15The Court observed that the majority of applicants (35 out of 93) were successfully appointed after passing the PET and document verification
Source reference: p. 13The Court found that the petitioners, having participated in the PET and failing, could not now claim that the imposition of such tests was a "willful violation"
Source reference: p. 15The respondents' reliance on matriculation was justified by the abolition of "1S grade" pay scales under the 7th Central Pay Commission
Source reference: p. 13Holding
The Court held that there was no intentional or willful disobedience of the judicial orders
The respondents substantially complied by adopting the prescribed screening process and granting significant age relaxations
Source reference: p. 12All four contempt applications (CPAN 1475/2023, 1481/2023, 1564/2023, and 1480/2023) were dismissed
Source reference: p. 16Original Court PDF
KALAM ALI MONDAL AND ORSvsVIDYA BHUSAN ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in