AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
This petition alleges contumacious and wilful disobedience, by the respondents, of the direction contained in para 11 of the order dated 3 March 2025, which reads thus:
“11.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be kept on a waiting list for posting, except where they can be accommodated in any of their three choices of posting. We make it clear that this protection shall be applicable only to those petitioners who have given their three choices of posting. If they have not given any of their three choices of posting, the interim protection shall not be applicable.”
It is an admitted position that each of the petitioners in this case has been granted the second of the three choices of posting indicated by him.
Though Mr. H.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, sought to advance arguments as to the legality of the decision to grant the petitioners the second choice of their positing, that is not an aspect which can engage us in contempt jurisdiction.
Once the petitioners have been granted the second of the three choices of posting, no disobedience, much less any wilful or contumacious disobedience of the order dated 3 March 2025 can be alleged.
The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.