JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. The contempt jurisdiction of the court is a disciplined jurisdiction.

2. This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed by the applicant invoking the jurisdiction of this court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. What is complained of is about non-compliance of order and direction in judgment dated 15.3.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 5082 of 2022.

2.1 At the outset it may be stated, as also reflected in the order dated 22.9.2022 that the grievance regarding non-compliance of the directions of learned single Judge with regard of applicant No. 1-original petitioner No. 1 no more survived. However, according to learned advocate for the petitioners Ms. Kruti Shah, the order was not complied with in its entirety for second applicant, therefore on that score only the present proceedings would survive. As the case about non-compliance survives only in respect of applicant No. 2, the facts herein-below are focused accordingly.

3. The moot question is whether the respondents could be said to have committed contempt of court and flouted the directions of learned single Judge by not applying to applicant-petitioner No. 2 Resolution dated 15.9.2022 and by not granting benefit to him thereunder.

3.1 While noticing the background which culminated into aforesaid directions, the Special Civil Application was filed with the prayer to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to treat the period of service from the date of first appointment and further to treat the service of the petitioner as continuous from the first date of appointment. The Special Civil Application came to be allowed by learned single Judge by his judgment and order dated 15.3.2022.

3.2 The directions of learned single Judge in paragraph No. 6 of the aforementioned judgment read as under:

“Admittedly therefore in view of the undisputed position of the petitioners being pre 01.04.2005 appointees, the respondents are directed to consider the period of ad-hoc services rendered in case of both the petitioners viz. of the petitioner no. 1 from 31.07.2000 to 24.04.2006 and that of the petitioner no. 2 from 12.08.1998 to 02.10.2003 as regular for all purposes in accordance with the resolution dated 16.05.2021. The decision shall be taken and the same shall be granted to the petitioners for all purposes as envisaged in the resolution dated 16.05.2021 within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

3.3 With regard to petitioner No. 2 the applicant No. 2 herein-Dr. Komal Samir Shah, it was the case that she was appointed as ad-hoc tutor Class-II in Anesthesiology by order dated 4.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 2 the Commissioner of Health and Medical Services. The Government College, Bhavnagar passed order dated 18.8.1998 appointing her with effect from 12.8.1998. After serving as ad-hoc tutor the petitioner No. 2 came to be appointed as ad-hoc Sah Adhyapak Class-I by order dated 2.10.2003. The College gave her the appointment on 3.10.2003 by order dated 8.10.2003. Having served as ad-hoc tutor and ad-hoc Assistant Professor for the respective duration, the petitioner No. 2 participated in selection process for the post of Sah Adhyapak with effect from 3.12.2008 and came to be appointed by order dated 11.12.2008, subsequently she came to be appointed as ad-hoc Sah Adhyapak with effect from 8.1.2011. The petitioner made representation seeking regularization of her service on the post of first appointment on ad-hoc basis and pursuance to such representation, the college forwarded the representation to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3.4 It was in context of the above grievance that the Special Civil Application was filed which culminated into aforementioned judgment dated 15.3.2022 of learned single Judge. The directions issued therein were brought under the contempt jurisdiction of this court by filing this Miscellaneous Civil Application, complaining of non-compliance thereof.

3.5 In response to the notice, respondent No. 1 the Under Se