The contempt Court could only have examined whether the directions issued by the Court in the previous petitions to consider the case of the respondent for regularization had been complied with or not, and could not have gone into the validity of the order passed by the appellants rejecting the respondent's case for regularization.

Ravi Shankar Jha, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act (for short "the Act") being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.P. No. 505/2013 dated 24-6-2015. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that by the aforesaid impugned order the learned Single Judge has held as under:-

"Under such facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, respondent has acted in utter disregard to the mandate issued by the Writ Court and confirmed by the Writ Appellate Court, as this Court finds no justification in treating the performance of the petitioner for three spells, namely, 27-9-2008 to 31-3-2009, 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 and 1-4-2010 to 31-12-2010 as 'average' by the Screening Committee and taking into consideration the alleged fourth spell remark, namely, 1-1-2011 to 31-12-2011 as 'poor' for denying the claim of regularization as Administrative Officer. That apart, similarly situated employees have been regularized, as well discussed by the Writ Court in para 20 of the order, thereby petitioner has been subjected to typical hostility and depravity. Respondent in fact and in effect has attempted to scuttle the mandate contained in the order of the Writ Court and defied the directions issued thereunder. As such, respondent is found to have committed contempt of Court.

However, before proceeding against the respondent for contempt of Court and to impose suitable punishment, it is considered apposite to allow an opportunity to respondent/contemnor-Smt. Manjula Choudhary to purge the contempt or to show cause as to why she should not be punished for contempt of Court. Accordingly, office is directed to issue notice to respondent on the aforesaid count returnable/within two weeks for appearance on 14th July, 2015. State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajendra Singh and Another (2004) AIR SCW 4812, referred to."

2. It is submitted that after holding that the appellant has committed contempt of Court the learned Single Judge has thereafter proceeded to grant opportunity to the appellant either to purge the contempt or to show cause as to why she should not be punished for contempt. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the original petition filed by the respondent W.P. No. 6939/2011, this Court had simply issued a direction to consider the case of the respondent for regularization which direction was upheld and affirmed in W.A. No. 194/2013. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid direction the appellant has considered the case of the respondent for regularization and rejected the same by order dated 2-9-2013, it is urged that the Court has gone into the correctness of the order dated 2-9-2013 passed by the appellants, examined the correctness of the performance appraisal made by the appellant and has thereafter recorded a finding that the order passed by the appellant amounts to circumventing the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 6939/2011. It is stated that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court in contempt proceedings as the Court could not have gone into the merits of the order passed by the appellant in compliance and thereafter force the appellant under threat of contempt to issue an order of regularization in favour of the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra at the very outset objects to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that no order of punishment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in C.P. No. 505/2013 which is still pending adjudication and in such circumstances, the appeal under section 19 of the Act, is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has committed