Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 13th December, 2002 whereby this Court gave following directions:

We cannot approve of a situation where a person is appointed on temporary or ad hoc basis without having participated in the process of selection. In case such an appointment is regulated it would amount to a back door entry into service. The petitioner, therefore, in our view is not entitled for being regularized without facing a process of regular selection. But at the same time it must be ensured that in case the respondent decided to fill up the post held by the petitioner on regular basis, it must allow the petitioner to participate in the process of selection and while considering his case along with others, the experience acquired by the petitioner in the service of the respondent must be given due weightage. In case the posts are to be filled up on regular basis the respondents will not debar the petitioner on the ground that he has become overage.

2. The petitioner contended that despite directions given by this Court many persons were appointed by the respondent against regular post of peon but the petitioner was not considered by the respondent.

3. A perusal of affidavit filed by Mr. V. Narayanan, Principal of Kasturba Polytechnic for Women, Pitampura, Delhi shows that the stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was working as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar, a temporary post created in 1996 under State Annual Plan 1994-95 by GNCT Delhi. This scheme was discontinued together with this post by Finance Department on 23rd May, 2003 as the activities related to security aspect were advised to be privatized in every government institution. Since the petitioner was working as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar till January 2003, under the above scheme, the petitioners service also came to an end. Regarding appointments of the Peon (Group-D) by the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar on daily wages basis under the community polytechnic scheme of Ministry of HRD Government of India. The petitioner was never engaged as peon. Therefore, the petitioner was trying to mislead the Court that he was entitled to be appointed as peon.

4. The logic taken by the respondent is very strange. An attendant is nothing but a peon. If a person is appointed as Attendant-cum-Chowkidar that only means that apart from doing duties of peon he has also to work as Chowkidar. The directions given by this Court vide above order were very clear that in the next regular post the petitioner would be considered and age bar would not stand in the way of the petitioner, looking at the fact that he had a long experience with the respondent. The directions given by this Court were sought to be circumvented by the respondent on the ground that peon was a group D post and was different from Attendant-cum-Chowkidar post. It is admitted by the Counsel for the respondent, during arguments, that peon against regular Group D posts were appointed. Group D posts are the posts which are other than clerical posts like posts of mali, chowkidar, peon, attendant, sweepers etc.. Thus, the plea taken by the respondent was a fallacious plea and it only seems that the directions given by the Court were deliberately circumvented. I consider that the respondent is guilty of Contempt of Court. However, one opportunity is given to the respondent to purge himself of the Contempt and to appoint the petitioner against next available regular Class IV (Group D) post.

5. List this matter on 5th July, 2010 for further orders. In case the petitioner is not appointed against next available Class-IV post, the respondent shall undergo sentence as may be awarded by this Court under Contempt of Court Act.