The limitation period of one year prescribed in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is applicable to contempt proceedings before the High Court, and the delay in initiating such proceedings must be satisfactorily explained or condoned.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for committing contempt of Court for wilful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court dated 12th September 1997 by not appointing all the candidates from the merit list. In this matter the Rule was issued on 28th September. 2007 against the Respondent Nos. 2. 3 and 4 for formal drawing up of the aforesaid contempt proceedings. After affidavits having been filed the matter was finally heard. The facts and circumstances leading to initiating this contempt application is stated hereunder :

( 2 ) ON or about 31st March 1995 after written test followed by interview having been taken the Chief Engineers PWD (Roads)and Chairman of the Selection Committee prepared a merit list for appointment of 4th grade Clerks whereby and whereunder 254 candidates were chosen to be eligible. Out of 254 candidates, 179 candidates were reserved for general category and 28 candidates were selected from the Department out of the aforesaid general category. The rest of the candidates were enlisted in the reserved category of various classifications. The respondents without following the seniority of the merit list started appointing candidates and by reason thereof the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 along with other candidates were compelled to file application in the State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) asking for appointment of the petitioners on the basis of the merit list wherein their names figure. The said application being OA No. 183 of 1996 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by order dated 29th April 1997 directing the Chief engineers (Roads) to appoint the candidates on the basis of the merit list without resorting to pick and choose policy. The said order of the learned Tribunal was challenged in this Court by the State by filing appropriate application and the same was dismissed by order dated 12th September 1997. The division Bench of this Hon'ble Court while dismissing the said application upheld decision of the learned Tribunal and further directed the Government to appoint the candidates on the basis of the merit list within two months. On 30th January 2001 it was learnt without complying with the said orders the hon'ble Minister in Charge and other respondents cancelled the merit list after appointing the candidates enlisted in the merit list from and amongst the departmental candidates and the candidates from reserved category. The petitioners having learnt aforesaid illegality filed on or about 15th february 2002 another application in the said Tribunal challenging the said order cancelling the panel and asked for direction upon the respondents to offer appointment. This application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 5th April 2006 holding that there was no fresh cause of action to move the said application hence fresh application does not lie. It was further held that since the panel was cancelled and the respondents have filled up the vacancies no relief could be granted. The petitioners herein challenged the said order of the Tribunal dated 5th April 2006 by filing an application in this Court and the said application being WPST 392 of 2006 was disposed of on 11th April 2007 holding inter alia that order of the learned Tribunal was just and proper and it was observed by the Division Bench that contempt proceeding was appropriate remedy as there has been violation of the earlier order of this Court.

( 3 ) ON 17th of April 2007 the learned Advocate for the petitioner wrote a letter calling upon the respondents to comply with the said order that has been violated.

( 4 ) IN the affidavit it has been alleged that the present contempt application is barred by limitation as such it is not maintainable. Factually it is admitted position that the petitioners have not been appointed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 12th September 1997.

( 5 ) WHILE meeting the aforesaid question of limitation Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee learn