Intentional concealment of material facts while filing a contempt petition can lead to adverse consequences, and compliance with court orders is crucial to avoid contempt charges.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition alleging that the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 07.04.2021 passed by this court, whereby the Division Bench directed the respondents to apply the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar to the present petitioner and extended him the same relief. The petitioner has pleaded in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the contempt petition as below :-

'5. That thereafter petitioner has approached before respondent office and provide copy of the hon'ble court order and he sought appointment to the respondents but nothing has been done by the respondents.

6. The petitioner send legal notice through his lawyer, same are send to the respondents through the speed post, its submitted as its in the legal notice.

7. That the judgment was passed by the Hon'ble court on 07.04.2021 and as per the direction of the hon'ble court respondent would be compliance the order and provide appointment to the petitioner after passed in the physical exams, but however no efforts have been made by the respondents to compliance the order passed by the hon'ble court, the respondents have full knowledge of the order passed by this hon'ble court and the direction issued by the hon'ble court are very clear and specific. It's clear willful and conscious non compliance of the judgment passed by this hon'ble court. The act of the respondents are nothing but amounts to contempt of the hon'ble court.

8. That the judgment dated 07.04.2021 was submitted by the petitioner in the office of the respondent no. 01 & 03 but however neither of them have made any efforts to comply with the judgment passed by the hon'ble court and hence both are guilty of non compliance of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court on 07.04.2021, for which they deserves to be punished for committing the contempt of this hon'ble court.'

2. apparently, thus, the pertinent assertion of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that the respondents have failed to take any action whatsoever qua the petitioner despite being served with a copy of the order dated 07.04.2021.

3. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned aaG, has filed a compliance report annexing therewith a copy of letter dated 06.09.2021 communicated to the petitioner clearly indicating that the petitioner herein, who is a candidate of General Category, secured 38.875 marks, whereas the cut-off for the said category was 43.250 marks and thus, the petitioner was not selected as he did not stand in merit.

4. The matter was taken up on 10.05.2022, on which day, the Mr. M.L. Lathar, DGP and Mr. Harshvardhan agarwal, S.P. Jalore, present through VC, apprised the court that the petitioner has intentionally concealed the fact that after receiving his representation in terms of the order dated 07.04.2021, the petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 06.09.2021 that he did not secure the requisite number of marks for being appointed on the post of Constable. It is specifically pleaded at para 5 of the reply that these facts are in knowledge of the petitioner and the letter dated 06.09.2021 was sent to him. a copy of this compliance report was provided to the petitioner's counsel on 09.05.2022. an additional affidavit of the petitioner was filed on 10.05.2022, wherein there was no denial to the assertion made in the reply that the order dated 06.09.2022 was conveyed to the petitioner and his counsel.

5. an additional affidavit dated 12.05.2022 sworn by the SP, Jalore has been filed on record, wherein it is clearly asserted that vide registered letter dated 09.07.2021, counsel for the petitioner was also informed that the candidature of the petitioner was duly considered by the respondents. However, the petitioner was not selected on the post of Constable as he did not secure the requisite marks so as to stand in merit.

6. Mr. Ripudaman Singh, counsel representing the petitioner insisted that he had no knowledge of these facts.

7. Today during the course of hearing