IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 286 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27524/2007 Dated 08/09/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND & 4TH PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDEV.S., S/O. N.SUMITHRAN AGED 36 YEARS, PEON, S.N.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM NOW TRANFERRED TO S.N.COLLEGE, CHERTHALA. 2. REVI.K.G., S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, PEON, S.N.COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM. NOW TRANFERRED TO S.N.COLLEGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- KURUVILLA JOHN, AGE & FATHERS NAME NOW KNOWN, TO THE PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Cont.Case.(C) NO. 286 OF 2010 (S) ======================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Annexure A1 judgment, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of directing respondents to examine whether the posts against which appointments were made were available in terms of the approved staff pattern and that if appointments made were to such posts, to complete the formalities and pay salary to the petitioners for the period from October 2002 to 27/7/2005. As directed, the matter was examined and Annexure A2 order has been passed, concluding that the appointments were made overlooking the availability of sanctioned strength. It is complaining that the order is in violation of the directions of this Court, the contempt petition has been filed. 2. A reading of the order itself show that on examination, the respondents found that the appointments were made in excess of the sanctioned staff strength. Therefore, by examining the issue and passing the order, the direction in the judgment has been complied with. Even if it is accepted that the said finding is COC No.286/10 :2 : erroneous, that is no ground to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act and the remedy of the petitioners is to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek remedies against Annexure A2 in appropriate proceedings, the contempt of court case is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp