- (1.) Heard Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant. The present contempt application has been filed for punishing the Opposite Party for wilful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 4.8.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41902 of 2006, Girija Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, by which the writ petition was disposed of with the following observation: "Without entering into the merits of the claim set up by the petitioner, it is provided that the petitioner may make a detailed representation in respect of his claim within two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order before the District Basic Education Officer. On such a representation being made the District Basic Education Officer shall examine the following facts: (a) Whether the appointment of the petitioner has been made against duly sanctioned post? (b) Whether the appointment is in accordance with the statutory rules which regulate such appointment applicable to the institution concerned? (c) Whether the petitioner is possessed of all the prescribed minimum qualifications? In case all these three issues are answered in favour of petitioner, the District Basic Education Officer shall take appropriate action for payment of salary to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally."
(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that after the aforesaid decision, a detailed inquiry was made and in the inquiry, it was found that all the conditions as enumerated in the order dated 4.8.2006 are satisfied. Even then while passing the order, the applicant has been non-suited on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the managerial return sent to the office of opposite party and it was also observed that after 21 years, there is no occasion to pay salary. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that action of the opposite party is in teeth of the direction given by this Court.
(3.) The Apex Court in number of cases has held that if the decision has been taken by the authority concerned, its illegality or impropriety or defect in decision making process will not fall in the domain of contempt Court as it gives fresh cause of action and that can be challenged before appropriate Court.;