An appeal under Section 19 of the Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Courts Act, 1997 is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt.

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

Respondent No. 1 approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 2488/2012 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the appellants herein to consider his case for being appointed as Junior Yatchman. He sought consideration of his case on the analogy of one Sh. Sonaullah Buhroo who, as claimed by respondent No. 1, was appointed as Senior Yatchman under similar set of circumstances. This petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 01.03.2016 by directing the appellants to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for his adjustment against the available post of Junior Yatchman on the analogy of Sh. Sonaullah Buhroo. The decision in this regard was directed to be taken within a period of one month from the date copy of the judgment was served upon the appellants. The judgment aforesaid, however, was not implemented by the appellants despite the lapse of more than one month as stipulated in the judgment, the petitioner moved before the learned Single Bench of this Court by way of a contempt petition registered as Contempt(SWP) No. 103/2017. On being put on notice, the appellants appeared and filed their statement of facts. As is appropriately noted by the learned Single Judge, the appellants instead of reporting compliance of the judgment dated 01.03.2016 justified the non-consideration of the claim of respondent No. 1 on the plea that the post of Junior Yatchman is a post which is required to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment and that the same can only be filled up on the recommendations of the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board. Reliance was placed upon the Jammu and Kashmir Tourism (Subordinate) Services Recruitment Rules, 1990. It was also pleaded by the appellants before the Contempt Court that the consideration order passed on 28.05.2016 -complies with the judgment alleged to be violated by the appellants and, therefore, no contempt was made out. The Contempt Court considered the stand taken by the appellants in the statement of facts justifying the consideration order dated 28.05.2016 whereby the claim of respondent No. 1 had been rejected and came to the conclusion that the case of respondent No. 1 for his adjustment as Junior Yatchman should have been considered following the analogy adopted in the case of Sh. Sonaullah Buhroo and not by any reference to the Service Recruitment Rules. The Contempt Court, thus, found that prima facie appellant No. 3 was in contempt for violating the orders of the Court and therefore, proceeded to frame the Rule. Appellant No. 3 was, thus, put on notice to show cause as to why he be not punished for wilful disobedience of the Court orders. The contempt Court further directed appellant No. 3 to remain present on each date of hearing of the case till the contempt petition was taken to its logical conclusion. Appellant No. 3 was also directed to ensure that order passed by the learned Writ Court of which disobedience was alleged by respondent No. 1 was implemented. It is this order passed by the Contempt Court on 28.11.2017 which is called in question by the appellants through the medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Mr. Fayaz Ahmed Mir learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, would submit that the order impugned could not have been passed by the Contempt Court, more so when the judgment sought to be complied with had been fully complied with and a consideration order in terms thereof had been passed. Learned counsel, in particular, would draw our attention to the consideration order dated 28.05.2016 and submit that the consideration in terms of the judgment was accorded to respondent No. 1 and his case for appointment against the post of Junior Yatchman was rejected on valid and justified grounds. He, therefore, submits that in the light of statement of facts filed by the appellants and passing of the consideration order in terms of the judgment dated 01.03.2016, there remains nothing