Disobedience of an order of a Court, whether prohibitive or mandatory, whether made ex-parte or upon hearing both parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt, if it is calculated or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into disrespect or disregard, (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. Appa Rao), for it strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of an effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. (Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar).

2. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society and the judiciary is its guardian. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice. The court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, as such, is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not in order to protect its dignity against insult or injury as the expression 'contempt of court' may seem to suggest, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is of paramount public interest that the people, after obtaining an order of the court, should not feel helpless or without remedy when such order is flouted. If orders of the court are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. (Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries; Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu). Every one, howsoever high he may be, is bound to implement the orders of Court. Those who disregard the Court's order do so at their own peril for no one is above the law. (Court on its own motion v. N.S.Kanwar).

3. Heard Sri D.Ramakrishna, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

4. The present Contempt Case is filed to summon the 1st respondent and punish him under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for not complying with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21397 of 1997 dated 12.02.2007. The order of this Court required the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13552 of 1996 dated 21.04.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS.I) Department dated 01.01.1999, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5. A copy of the order of this Court was, admittedly, received on 13.03.2007 and, as such, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner within three months thereafter i.e. on or before 13.06.2007. This Contempt Case was filed on 30.11.1997 and notice before admission, returnable in three weeks, was ordered by this Court on 23.01.2008. When the matter was listed on 13.02.2008, time was granted to the learned Government Pleader to enable a counter affidavit to be filed by the first respondent. On 20.02.2008, this Court noted the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner that no orders had been passed by the 1st respondent till date, and of the Learned Government Pleader that no instructions had been received in the matter. On being satisfied, prima facie, that the 1st respondent had violated the order of this Court dated 12.02.2007, the Contempt Case was admitted and notice in Form-I was issued. The Notice in Form-I requires the contemnor to be present in Court in person. When the Contempt Case was listed on 19.03.2008, the respondent- contemnor was not present in Court, despite the notice in Form-I having been served upon him. As such, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued to secure