The court emphasizes the necessity for clear judicial directives in contempt proceedings to ensure compliance and efficient resolution of rights, rather than prolonging litigation.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the alleged contemnor is against an interim order passed by the High Court directing listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges. The short facts leading to filing of the contempt petition, followed by the direction as indicated hereinabove are as follows.

3. The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college sometime in the year 1993. We are informed that the college was receiving certain financial assistance from the State and this ended with the advent of the Government policy dated 21.08.2000 not to grant and financial assistance to non-aided Government colleges. Challenging this policy by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, respondents sought directions for sanction of the posts and also for payment of salaries from out of Government exchequer. By it order dated 07.10.2010, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and directing the Director of Education, “to look into the matter and pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law”. In compliance, the Director of Education passed the following order on 25.03.2011;

"In the light of the above policy decision taken by the government, it is clear that the government has completely banned the creation of posts of teachers/ non-teaching staff in non-government aided colleges. It is not possible to create lecturer posts in B.SC. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics subjects in Ranveer Rananjay Postgraduate College, Amethi, Sultanpur as desired by the petitioners. Therefore, the representation of the petitioners is hereby dismissed and disposed of.

This order of disposal of the representation is being issued in compliance with the final order dated 7.10.2010 passed in the case number 1523 (S/B)/2010 of Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and others against the State of U.P. and others, filed in the Hon’ble High Court.

Dr. (Ramanand Prasad)

Director of Education

(Higher Education)

U.P., Allahabad.”

4. The above referred order was again challenged in the second writ petition and it came to be disposed of on 06.03.2013 with the following direction to reconsider;

"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Director of Higher Education, opposite party no. 2 with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to reconsider petitioners' claim with regard to payment of the regular salary in the light of observations made hereinbaove and pass a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously say, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and communicate decision.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition allowed."

5. Following the above referred direction to reconsider the respondents claim, the authorities again passed an order on 01.07.2013, yet again reiterating their position as under;

"It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been teaching in the college in question only after the implementation of the Government Order dated 21.08.2000/30.08.2000 regarding the ban on creation of posts and payment from the salary payment account, after the approval of the University, and their salaries are being paid by the management from its own sources as per the rules since the year 2003, 2004 and 2007 under the self-financed scheme. It is also clear from the above that the petitioners/management were aware that since the year 2000, there is a policy ban on the State Government giving any