IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1591 of 2007(S) ----------------------------------------------------- ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35255/2003 DATED 16/11/2006 .................... PETITTIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- VILASINI K.K. KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHIKKAD KARA, AMBALAMEDU, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUCHEENDRAN SMT.ASHA P.SOMAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (3 AND 2) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A.P.M.MOHAMMED HANISH, I.A.S (AGE AND FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. B.S.MAVOJI, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C) No.1591 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. In this contempt petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the complainant states that the respondents have disobeyed, wilfully and deliberately, the orders and directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.35255 of 2003 dated 16th November, 2006. 2. The one and the only direction that was issued by the learned Single Judge reads as under: “The second respondent will also to look into the grievance of the petitioner that due representation was not given to the members of the Viswakarma community while giving communal rotation as per Ext.P1 guide lines and consequently petitioner lost her chance. If so, the 2nd respondent will take steps to render justice to the petitioner, by appointing her in the next available vacancy. The needful orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 3. After disposal of the writ petition, the Director of Collegiate Education has passed an order in No.C.3/6843/2004/Coll.Edn. dated 2.2.2008, inter alia, holding that the complainant is not eligible and Cont. Case (C)No.1591 of 2007 2 entitled for appointment as per Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the State Government. 4. In our opinion, if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, the petitioner is expected to question the correctness or otherwise of the same before appropriate forum. 5. Since, in our opinion, there is no positive direction as such to the second respondent to comply with in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we cannot be taking cognizance of this contempt petition. Accordingly, we reject this contempt petition. However, we reserve liberty to the complainant, if she so desires, to question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 2.2.2008, before appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns