Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Special leave granted in both SLPs.

2. Both these matters can be dealt with under common judgment. The short facts are as under:

The respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, Medical College, Srinagar, under Order No. 197-ME of 1981. He took up foreign assignment with Subya General Hospital at Saudi Arabia. He was In Saudi Arabia for a period of two years and ten months. The said period was treated as on deputation without pay and allowances. It was directed that he will be entitled to count the said deputation towards increments and other service benefits. It was made clear that this period of deputation on foreign assignment could not be counted as against teaching experience.

3. By Government Order No. 134-HME dated 25-2-86, he was promoted as Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis. Thereafter his services as such came to be regularised on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission as per Government Order No. 304-HME dated 7-4-89. The respondent was confirmed on the post of Assistant Professor with retrospective effect from 25-1-87.

4. He filed Writ Petition No. 2452/ 92 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar inter alia seeking ad hoc promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 14-3-89. It was urged in the writ petition that promotion granted to various other persons were arbitrary and he had been denied such a promotion despite having requisite experience. The further contention was that it was wrong on the part of the Government in not counting period of foreign assignment as against his teaching experience.

5. On 21-9-92, the High Court issued notice on the writ petition. It also passed an interim order directing the State Government and the appellant herein to grant ad hoc promotion to the respondent to the post of Associate Professor. In March, 1993 for non-implementing this order, contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent. On 8-393 the High Court issued notice on the contempt petition and called upon the appellant to implement the Order dated 21-9-92. When the contempt proceedings came up for. hearing on 1-9-93, the learned Judge passed an order directing issue of non-bailable warrants and framed "rule" in the said contempt petition. The learned Judge also directed the Government Advocate - Additional Advocate-General, representing the appellant, should not appear on behalf of the appellant in the said contempt petition to defend him and on the contrary should assist the court.

6. The appellant filed his counter in the contempt proceedings. Besides, a detailed counter was also filed in the writ petition in which it was stated that the claim of the respondent for promotion was misconceived since such a promotion to the post of Associate Professor under the relevant rule were required to be made by the Public Service Commission or by Departmental Promotion Committee. It was further urged that he did not possess the requisite qualifications/experience eligible for promotion. More than above this, the post of Associate Professor was a selection post. Mere gaining of experience was not sufficient to entitle the respondent to claim promotion.

7. On 13-9793, the appellant was personally present in the court. The learned Judge declined to accept the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant till the order dated 21-9-92 was implemented and the appellant purged himself of contempt. The contempt proceedings were adjourned to 27-9-93 and it was directed that the appellant be present in the court on the said date. Aggrieved by this order, S.L.P. No. 15573/93 has come to be preferred.

8. Against the order dated 1-9-93 referred to above, S. L .P. No. 15563 / 93 has come to be preferred.

9. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order could not have been passed because practically it amounts to allowing the writ petition without hearing the appellant. Therefore, it is a wro