HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 151 of 2011 Naveen Chandra Pathak and others. …Petitioners Versus Shri Chandra Singh Gwaal, Director, School Education, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. …Respondent. Present: Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondent for his willful disobedience of order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 992 (S/S) of 2009 Naveen Chandra Pathak Vs. Secretary, Education, State of Uttarakhand and four others, by which liberty was given to the petitioners to make fresh representation to the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, and direction was given to the Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to take a decision on the said representation keeping in view the recommendation made by the District Education Officer, Pithoragarh on the subject by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The certified copy of order dated 25.8.2010 along with the representation was served upon the respondent on 11.9.2010. Thereafter, vide order dated 18th May, 2011, the respondent decided the representation of the petitioners. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the respondent had decided the representation of the petitioners, but he has not complied with the order in its true sense, as while deciding the representation of the 2 petitioners, he has not taken into consideration the recommendation of the District Education Officer, Pithoragarh. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Subhash Upadhyay, on the other hand, submitted that, in fact, the District Education Officer not only considered the recommendation of the District Education Officer, Pithoragarh, but also considered the relevant government orders, on the basis of which, the petitioners were claiming the benefits. He has submitted that there is no violation of order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Writ Court and the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalith Mathur Vs. L. Maheswara Rao reported in (2000) 10 SCC 285. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has denied this fact and has submitted that the ratio of Lalith Mathur’s case (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as in the matter of Lalith Mathur, there was a simple direction for deciding the representation, whereas in the present case, there is a specific direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioners by considering the recommendation made by District Education Officer, Pithoragarh. 7. It is true that the recommendation made by the District Education Officer, Pithoragarh was not considered by the respondent in detail, but while deciding the representation of the petitioners, he has referred the recommendation of the District Education Officer, Pithoragarh, and has also considered Government Orders dated 2.2.1996 and 4.9.2000, on which the entire case of the petitioner is based. 8. I think that the substantial compliance of the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Writ Court has been made and Contempt Court cannot go into the merit in deep and give its own finding on merits. The better course for the petitioners 3 would be to challenge the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the respondent on the representation of the petitioners. 9. Consequently, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that it is always open for the petitioners to challenge the order dated 18.5.2011, by which their representation was dismissed on merit, before the appropriate forum. 10. Contempt notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged. (V.K. Bist) 16.9.2011 Rathour