- (1.) THE facts which have given rise to this Contempt petition are that the petitionerâ„¢s father held the post of Inspector in public Health Engineering Department. Having died in harness, his son the petitioner herein, sought indulgence of the court through the medium of writ petition No. 3090/97 to command the respondents to offer him an appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rule 3 of SRO 43 of 1994 (for short SRO) against a vacancy in the lowest rank of non -gazetted service. The writ petition came to be adjudicated upon vide order dated 25.05.1998 requiring the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the said SRO with further direction to the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the outcome of consideration leaving the petitioner free to invoke the remedy against the result of consideration if so advised.
(2.) THROUGH the medium of this Contempt petition violation of the aforementioned order is alleged against the respondents who in compliance to the notice have filed the statement of fact through Mr. MH Attar, Learned Additional Advocate General supported by an affidavit, he has also produced a communication bearing No. PHE/8767 -69 dated 19.2.1999 to show that having considered the petitioner in terms of SRO 43 the petitioner was found entitled to appointment on a class IVth post and not on a non gazetted post, accordingly he stands appointed. The statement of fact coupled with the communication aforementioned substantiates the fact that the order of the Court has been complied with which fact is not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, to escape the fallout of consideration, it is contended that the decision of the respondents is not in conformity with the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate appointment) Rules 1994 made vide SRO 43.
(3.) WHAT emerges from the circumstances of this case is that the result of consideration being not to the satisfaction of the petitioner, he has resorted to a remedy by way of contempt petition in utter disregard to the legal position that the respondents cannot be said to be at fault unless there is violation of the order, that too wilfull or deliberate, which is wanting. I say so having examined the facts of the case in the light of mandate of the judgment which required the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and communicate the result thereof to him. Being satisfied that the consideration has been accorded and the result communicated. Judgment stands complied with. It is further contended that the decision of the respondents is not in conformity with SRO 43. The argument suggests an endeavour to seek a judicial review of the decision which is not possible in a Contempt petition and suffice to say that if the consideration accorded in compliance to the order of the court violates any of the legal or constitutional rights of the petitioner it furnishes a fresh cause of action to him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court but the remedy is not available through a Contempt petition.;