Dear Urvashi, Further to my previous message. The only (possibly) enforceable para of the SC judgement in Umadevi I can find is para 44 which reads as follows (Note the prefix that it is a "clarification"):-
"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. " --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Urvashi. > > The citation for the SC Judgement is:- > > http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=27636 > > Since you were represented by no less than 4 advocates and were still > dismissed, perhaps you can share with us the following information:- > > 1) Which specific directions of the SC Judgement were not implemented > in your opinion / pleadings thereby causing you to approach in > Original Contempt Jurisdiction? > > I am caused to ask this because mere "general directions" not against > any particular officer /Ministry without deadline (amounting to obiter > ) do not engender "contempt". Furthermore it is not clear if the UP > Government was a party to the Umadevi matter. > > Lastly, mere RTI applications do not give you cause of action to > approach the SC in *ORIGINAL* Contempt Jurisdiction, especially as you > are not a party in the Umadevi matter. You should also count yourself > lucky that the Justices who heard you, did not take a stronger tack on > you. > > Sarbajit >
