IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.08.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.747 of 2008 and Sub Application No.236 of 2008 S.N.Rajan ... Petitioner Vs. Mr.Jeyakodi, The Director (Polytechnic) Director of Technical Education, Chennai  600 025. ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order of this Court dated 29.11.2005 made in W.P.No.37975 of 2003. For Petitioner : Ms.I.Sivakami For Respondent : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, G.A. O R D E R The petitioner herein has come forward with the contempt petition against the respondent contending that the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.11.2005 in the writ petition filed by the petitioner viz., W.P.No.37975 of 2003 has been willfully disobeyed. 2.As the petitioner's prayer for promotion to the cadre of Instructor (Mechanical) in Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic, Palani was rejected, the said writ petition was filed seeking the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent herein relating to the impugned proceedings in ATM.No.26284/C1/03 dated 04.08.2003, to quash the same and to direct the respondents in the said writ petition to promote the petitioner to the post of Instructor (Mechanical) with effect from 24.09.1985 with seniority and other attendant benefits. It so happened, similarly placed persons had filed two earlier writ petitions in W.P.No.4894 of 1993 and W.P.No.7656 of 1993 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 21.12.2000, held that the post of Instructor was a promotional post and directed consideration of the representation of the petitioners therein for being promoted to the post of Instructors. As against the said order, writ appeals happened to be filed in W.A.No.207 of 2002 batch. While the said writ appeals were pending, the writ petition filed by the present petitioner viz., W.P.No.37975 of 2003 came to be disposed of with the following direction: "2.Under these circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as hereunder: "The writ petitioner is directed to enclose an authenticated copy of his earlier representation seeking promotion along with a copy of this order and forward it to the first respondent; on receipt of the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the entire materials available on record; provide a personal hearing to the writ petitioner; take a decision in accordance with law in the light of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.4894 & 7656/1993 if they stand attracted and communicate the same to the writ petitioner in any event not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 3.Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted a copy of the representation, based on which a personal hearing was given on 28.12.2005 and the respondent herein chose to pass an order in his Memo No.6219/C1/2004 dated 19.01.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Instructor. The gist of the order passed by the respondent herein is extracted hereunder: "Accordingly, the petitioner sent his representation to the first respondent for his consideration. As directed by the Court, the first respondent held a personal hearing with the petitioner on 28.12.2005. The petitioner explained his grievances to the first respondent. The first respondent examined his case in detail with all the available records and arrived at the following decision. (1) Writ Appeals have been filed by the 1st respondent against the Court Orders issued in W.P.No.4894 & 7656 of 1993. The W.A. are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court. Pending disposal of these Writ Appeals, decision cannot be taken in this case based on the orders issued in W.P.No.4894 & 7656 of 1993. (2) The petitioner is working in Government Aided Polytechnic College. In Government Aided Polytechnic Colleges all appointments should be made by the staff Selection Committee only. There is no provision in the rules to promote the petitioner as Instructor/Lecturer. According to the rules he has to appear through Staff Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Instructor/Lecturer. Hence the management is asked to convene a S.S.C. within 30 days and give the deserving petitioner a fair chance to be appointed to the post of Lecturer." 4.After the above said order was passed by the respondent, the petitioner herein kept quite for more than 2 = years. Meanwhile the writ appeals batch, stated supra, came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court confirming the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petitions filed by similarly placed persons. This present contempt petition has been filed after a lapse of nearly one year from the date of disposal of the said batch of writ appeals. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, after the disposal of the said batch of writ appeals, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 25.02.2008 to consider his claim for promotion to the cadre of Instructor and that the respondent herein has not chosen to consider the said representation and pass orders. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the disposal of the writ appeals filed in the case of similarly placed persons, the respondent should have again applied his mind and passed orders in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in those writ appeals and that since the respondent has not chosen to do so despite a further representation made by the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondent amounts to contempt. 6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that reason No.1 assigned by the respondent in his order dated 19.01.2006 will show that he had not taken any decision regarding the petitioner's request for promotion to the cadre of Instructor. The submissions made by the learned Government Advocate in this regard have also been taken into consideration. 7.Upon such a consideration, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. This Court had directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.4849 of 1993 and W.P.No.7656 of 1993 if they stand attracted and communicate his decision within 30 days. After a copy of the representation was sent to the respondent as mandated in the order of this Court, the petitioner was given a personal hearing and an order was passed on 19.01.2006 itself. 8.After going through the contents of the above said order dated 19.01.2006, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been complied with. If at all the reasons assigned for the conclusion arrived at by the respondent, according to the petitioner, are erroneous, the said order can be challenged in an appropriate proceeding. It appears, the present grievance of the petitioner is that the further representation made by the petitioner on 25.02.2008 has not been considered by the respondent. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said representation, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek a direction by initiating appropriate proceedings and not by proceeding against the respondent for contempt because the order, according to the opinion of this Court, had already been complied with as early as on 19.01.2006. 9.In view of the above said findings recorded by this Court, the Contempt Petition is closed. Consequently, connected sub application is closed. 29.08.2008 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sgl To Mr.Jeyakodi, The Director (Polytechnic) Director of Technical Education, Chennai  600 025. P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. Sgl Cont.P.No.747 of 2008 29.08.2008