ORDER :

This Court has heard Dr. Iqbal Hyder, the party-in-person, and learned senior counsel Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad appearing for the respondents.

2. This contempt case is filed alleging that respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 20.09.2021 in W.P.No.14684 of 2021 passed by this Court.

3. The order is to the following effect:

Learned standing counsel for the University appears and states that the counter is being filed today. He also submits that in view of the interim order passed in W.P.No.9677 of 2021, by which the University was directed to go with the interviews, but not to declare the results, the University is only conducting the interviews, but it will not disclose the results or announce the same. In that view of the matter, he submits that there is no urgency for hearing the matter today and that the matter can be heard after the counter is filed. The proof of service filed shows that notices to respondents 5 and 6 are served on them but they do not appear through a counsel.

List on 20.10.2021.’

4. The party-in-person argued the matter at length and points out that despite the undertaking granted to this Court that they will not disclose the results, the respondents on 07.02.2022 disclosed the results and selected two candidates. He submits that this is a willful disobedience of the Court’s order. According to him, an undertaking given to the Court cannot also be breached or overlooked. He submits that a breach of undertaking is also contempt. He relies upon case law to the effect. He points out that a reading of the order of appointment issued to third parties on 07.02.2022 shows that the appointment orders are subject to the outcome of the writ petitions including W.P.No.9677 of 2021 and W.P.No.14684 of 2021. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents are aware of the existence of the writ orders and this is the reason why they made the appointments subject to the result of the writ petitions. With regard to the contention raised by the respondents that the interim order was not extended beyond the particular point of time, the petitioner relies upon N.Mahalakshmi and others v. Principal Secretary (LA) and others, 2016 (6) ALT 727, wherein it is held as follows:

8. Thus, by this order, I convey to the Bar at large that specific extension of interim orders is not necessary in cases where there are interim orders, with a direction to list the matters after certain date or after a few weeks, and the matter is not listed or not taken up by the Court on that date. In such eventuality, the interim orders shall continue to be in operation till the matter is listed and taken up for hearing and a specific order vacating the interim orders is passed by the Court.

9. At the cost of repetition, I make it clear that if the Court grants an interim order in the first instance for a limited period, and simultaneously directs the matter be listed after a few weeks or after a certain date, then the interim orders granted earlier shall continue to remain in force till the matter is listed before the Court or till a specific order vacating the earlier interim orders is passed by the Court.

5. Relying on this judgment and other judgment to a similar effect, the party-in-person submits that the respondents are guilty of willful breach and should be punished.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents also argues the matter at length. He does not doubt the proposition of law that an undertaking given to the Court is also like an order passed and if the respondents commit a breach, they are liable for punishment. However, learned senior counsel submits that each case has to be decided on its own facts and a universal principle cannot be applied. He points out that the language used in the order is also important and in W.P.No.9677 of 2021, he submits that this Court granted an order which is reproduced in para 5 of the counter/reply. He points out that the respondents were permitted to proceed with the selections,