Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) Whether a Court in exorcise of its contempt jurisdiction can refuse to punish the contemnors if an order is passed strictly not in terms of the directions issued by this Court and whether on refusal to punish the contemnors an appeal lies in terms of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court are two questions involved in these two appeals.
(2.) Before adverting to the said questions, the fact in brief may be noticed.
(3.) The father of the petitioner allegedly owing to his being permanently incapacitated from rendering further service was allowed to retire on the basis of the medical examination conducted by the Medical Board. Such a retirement on medical ground took place in 1988. The petitioner filed a writ application as he had not been offered appointment allegedly in violation of the policy decision adopted by the State. The said writ application was disposed of directing the District Magistrate, Midnapore to consider the enquiry report allegedly made by the Block Development Officer. As despite the said order, no appointment was given, applications under the Contempt of Courts were filed. By reason of the impugned order dated 9.2.1995 the said applications for contempt were rejected on the ground that the alleged contemnor has passed an order.;