An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt, and an independent adjudication on the merits of the dispute between the parties is necessary for the appeal to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Contempt Petition No. 95/2018, by which the learned Single Judge directed the Director and the Secretary, Primary Education Department to remain present before the Court to explain as to why they should not be punished.

2. Even before formal admission of the appeal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/contempt petitioner, in whose contempt petition, the learned Single Judge has passed order on 20.11.2021, have appeared and taken objection to the maintainability of the appeal, therefore, learned Additional Advocate General was heard on the issue of maintainability of the appeal.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General would contend that though present is not a case where contemnors/officers of the State have been punished for contempt, it is a case where the learned Single Judge has issued certain directions deciding the matter independent of the order of which contempt was alleged before the learned Single Judge. He would submit that though there was direction of the Court to accommodate the writ petitioner, since accommodation was not possible for want of vacancy, despite that stand taken before the learned Single Judge, a direction to the authority to accommodate the writ petitioner and direction to the authorities/contemnors to appear before the Court and show cause against punishment, constitutes an independent adjudication through a judgment and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291 and Midnapore Peoples' Co.op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. Chunilal Nanda & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2190, this appeal, which is directed against an independent adjudication and judgment, would be maintainable.

4. Having given our anxious consideration to the detailed submissions and arguments at length submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, we find ourselves unable to accept his contentions for reasons which are stated infra.

5. Contempt petition has been filed by Respondent No. 1- contempt petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order earlier issued by the learned Single Judge on 15.12.2015 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1743/2005, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1262/2016 and batch of appeals.

6. In the writ petition, learned Single Judge holding that non-consideration of the case of the writ petitioner for appointment was not in accordance with law, directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment in accordance with his respective merit position as indicated by Rajasthan Public Service Commission while forwarding the list of successful candidates with the recommendation for appointment and accord him appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable. It was further directed that the writ petitioner would be accorded placement according to his merit position in the select list forwarded by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Learned Single Judge, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration that candidates have already been accorded appointments, directed the State to accommodate the writ petitioner without disturbing selections and appointments already made.

7. When this order was challenged in appeal, the appeal was also dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed.

8. It appears that later on, when the writ petitioner was not given any appointment and he was communicated that as the post is not available, he cannot be given appointment, contempt petition came to be filed. In that contempt petition, when the case was heard by the learned Single Judge on 20.11.2021, learned Single Judge taking into consideration the direction issued by the Court and not accepting the defence of there being no post available, directed the Director and the Secretary, Primary Educa