JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has been filed with the allegation that the order of this Court dated 10.12.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 30944 of 1997, has not been honoured and the opposite parties have deliberately and wilfully violated it.
3. The applicant, claims to have been selected for the post of “Assistant Wasil Waqi Nawis” in Collectorate at Allahabad in 1987. The petitioner claimed that though he was appointed on the post of Collection Peon in 1994, he was discharging the work of a typist. As he was not given appointment on the post of “Waqi Nawis” he filed Writ Petition No. 37257 of 1993, this was disposed off with a direction for deciding representation of the petitioner. By an order dated 11.7.1997, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the then Collector, holding that there was no order of Board of Revenue. As according to the applicant, the order was based on misconception, he filed Writ Petition No. 30944 of 1997. After hearing the parties, another single Judge of this Court vide its order dated 10.12.1997, directed the Collector to dispose off the representation after considering the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.9.1992 and also consider his appointment to the post of ‘Wasi’ if there is a vacancy within two months. Again, vide order dated 15.2.1998, the representation was rejected. The applicant then approached the writ court with an application under Article 215 of the Constitution, but the Court did not entertain it and observed that the applicant would approach the contempt court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Upon issuance of notices, affidavits have been exchanged. The basic stand of the opposite party has been that in pursuance of Writ Courts order dated 10.12.1997, the representation of the applicant was considered in detail and rejected. It was also held therein that there was no vacancy on the post and the applicant had no right to be appointed. However, a report of Additional District Magistrate (F and R) dated 3/4.1.2002 was brought on record by the applicant to show that juniors to the applicant had been given appointment in spite of the directions of the Board of Revenue dated 19.9.1992. On the basis of the said report, the Contempt Court vide order dated 28.11.2002 held that the stand taken by the opposite party in rejecting the claim of the applicant “is being disapproved by this Court”. Thereafter, it directed the new incumbent in office “to take appropriate decision in respect to the claim/entitlement of the petitioner, keeping in mind the observations as are contained in this order as well as disapproval of the stand which has been so taken by his predecessor and also keeping in mind the fact that Additional District Magistrate has clearly reported that several selectees even being junior to the petitioners has already been given appointment on the post in question.” It further directed the new incumbent in office to take steps and file personal affidavit by the next date fixed, i.e., 19.12.2002. In pursuance thereof, Sri Devesh Chaturvedi, District Magistrate, Allahabad, filed his personal affidavit annexing therein a copy of the decision taken by him on 17.12.2002.
5. The order dated 17.12.2002 is an exhaustive order running into 10 typed fullscape pages. Sri Devesh Chaturvedi has traced the history of the vacancies, its duration etc. He has also considered the order of the Board of Revenue, report of the Additional District Magistrate and so also the question of appointment of juniors to the applicant and has come to the conclusion that the applicant was appointed for a limited period and he is not entitled for appointment.
6. As already noted hereinabove, this contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of the writ court dated 10.12.1997 by which the writ court had directed to consider the case of the applicant with regard to his appointment. The contempt court after perusing the order dated 11.7.1997, though had disapproved the decision taken by the opposite party, had directed vide order dated 10.12.1997, to reconsider the case of the applicant after taking into consideration different aspect which are mentioned in the order itself. By the order dated 17.12.2002, the opposite party has considered all the aspects mentioned in the order dated 10.12.1997. Counsel for the applicant has urged that the order dated 17.12.2002 is neither legally nor factually correct. It may be so, but it is well settled that the contempt court can neither sit in appeal nor examine the correctness of a resultant order. The Apex Court in Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheshwara Rao, (2000) 10 SCC 285 and J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291, has held that correctness of an order passed by a statutory authority on the directions of the writ court cannot be examined under the contempt jurisdiction. No doubt the resultant order may give rise to a fresh cause of action.
7. Further the counsel for the applicant has urged that the order was not complied with within the time fixed. From the record, it is evident that there may be delay of couple days, but that by itself would not constitute civil contempt. The Apex Court in the case of S.C. Poddar v. Dhani Ram, (2002) 1 SCC 766, has held that power of contempt should not be exercised as a matter of course. It went to the extent of saying that if the order has been complied with even after receipt of contempt notice, Court should show judicial grace and end the matter there.
8. In my view, this is not a case of wilful or deliberate violation of the orders passed by the writ court, and as such, no further orders are required in these proceedings. In the result, this contempt petition fails and is rejected, notices are discharged and it is consigned to record.