Office Date Notes, reports, COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures D-38 WPSS No.2391 of 2015 With CLCON No.19 of 2016 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the Cantonment Board, Dehradun/respondent no.1.

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.

This contempt petition is pending for almost

09 years. It is really shocking that a contempt petition remains pending for about 09 years.

The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that order dated 03.12.2015, passed in WPSS No. 2391 of 2015, Smt. Poonam Verma Vs. Cantonment Board, Dehradun and others (“the petition”) has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents. The Court on that date had inter alia passed the following order:-

“Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 4; respondent No. 4 was granted promotion to the post of Principal vide order dated 14.07.2003 and the Resolution No. 104-1 dated 13.09.2006 which was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 06.05.2015; Division Bench of this Court has also directed Cantonment Board to decide the question of promotion on the principle of seniority-cum-merit; once again, in violation of the direction issued vide judgment dated 06.05.2015, respondent No. 4 who was junior to the petitioner, has been granted promotion to the post of Principal.

Issue notice to respondent No. 4 by registered post A.D. in addition to normal mode of service returnable with three weeks, on steps being taken by the petitioner within a week.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that meanwhile operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stay. However, till further orders of this Court, petitioner, who is senior-most teacher in the college, shall be given officiating charge of the Principal.”

In fact, instant contempt petition has been tagged along with WPSS No.2391 of 2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Court passed in the petition, has been wilfully disobeyed and the petitioner has yet not been given the officiating charge of Principal.

In WPSS No.2391 of 2015, Cantonment Board is being represented.

Learned counsel for the Cantonment Board would submit that pursuant to the judgment passed in Special Appeal No.100 of 2010, Smt. Poonam Verma Vs. Cantonment Board, Dehradun and others (“Special Appeal”), the Cantonment Board was given liberty to make arrangements so that to run the business. Accordingly, the arrangements are made. In the Special Appeal in para 22 the Court passed the following orders:-

“22. We may also hold that the order dated

14.07.2003 would appear to be bad for two reasons. There is no basis on which it is found that the appellant is found to be unfit. Furthermore, in the subsequent order, which appears to be an order ratifying the earlier order, it is found that the appellant is only less meritorious. Therefore, the authority has not persevered in the earlier assessment. Therefore, for these reasons, we find that the said orders cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.07.2003 and the Resolution No. 104-1 dated 13.09.2006 cannot be sustained and they are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. We direct the respondent Board to consider the case of the appellant and the 4th respondent in terms of the proviso to Rule 5-B(8) and keeping in view the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court relating to the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the Cantonment Board to make arrangement so that the business of the School is not affected.”

There have been multiple rounds of litigation between the parties. The petitioner had challenged the action of Cantonment Board, by which, she