Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The learned State counsel has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this contempt case.
(2.) Contention raised by Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, the learned State counsel is that the writ Court's order passed in W.P.(S) No. 975 of 2005 and Civil Review No. 03 of 2015 stood modified by an order dated 17.09.2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 471 of 2017 with L.P.A. No. 481 of 2017 and while so, the petitioners cannot allege that the writ Court's order has been violated. If at all the petitioners have any grievance on non-compliance of the Court's order their remedy lies before the Hon'ble Division Bench and not before the writ Court.
(3.) The Letters Patent Court while affirming the writ Court's order has issued the following directions: 12. "This being the position, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the respondent-writ petitioners' service ought to be confirmed, provided all other applicable criteria are fulfilled. So far as the ratios of the cases of Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari and Mamta Mohanty are concerned, having considered the applicable circulars, in our opinion, their appointment suffered from certain procedural lapses but not illegality. The ratios of these two authorities do not apply in the facts of these cases. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the learned First Court. Let the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, take a decision as regards approval of appointment of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the light of the observations made by us in this judgment. This exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Let regular emoluments be released by the State within the aforesaid timeframe of eight weeks, provided there has been due discharge of duty by these two respondents. The connected applications also stand disposed of as we have disposed of the main application.";