- (1.) This contempt petition had been filed by fifteen persons who claimed that the order of this Court dated 6/5/2003 had been violated.
(2.) In that order this Court had reaffirmed an earlier decision dated 11/10/2001 in which it had been held that the persons who had been given interim appointment pending an appeal on the basis of rural weightage would not be entitled to so continue. In the concluding portion of the order dated 6/5/2003 we had also said: "As far as they (viz. those persons who had challenged the rural weightage rule) are concerned, if their case for appointment had not been considered only because otherwise unqualified candidates had been appointed by virtue of Rule 3 (B) and if as a result of the decision of this Court on 11/10/2001 any vacancies have been created in the year in which these writ petitioners had successfully qualified and been named in the merit list, they shall, against the vacancies so created, be entitled to be appointed in their turn and in accordance with the merit list. This exercise shall also be carried out within a period of eight weeks from date. However, we make it clear that if any of the writ petitioners is so appointed, his/her appointment will be taken from the date of the issuance of the order of the appointment. "
(3.) Out of fifteen petitioners, fourteen, whose names were on the selection list, have been issued appointment letters in order of merit. The remaining applicant is Raju who is Petitioner 7 in the contempt petition.;