IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 2 of 2010 Dr. Nakli Singh aged about 54 years S/o Sri Balla Singh . .……… Applicant Versus Col. Dr. J.S. Virk S/o Ex. Captain Inder Singh Principal G.B. Pant Engineering College, Pauri Garhwal ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the applicant. The present contempt application has been filed for violation of the undertaking given by way of an affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 235 of 2009 (S/B) which is also incorporated in the order of the writ court dated 29/12/2009. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present contempt application is, that the applicant was working on the post of Professor, Department of Bio-technology in G.B. Pant Engineering College, Pauri Garhwal and was also the Head of the Department. By an order dated 27/10/2009, the applicant was relieved and, by another order dated 23/10/2009 another person was appointment as the Head of the Department. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed writ petition No.235 of 2009 (S/B) which was admitted and an interim order dated 27/10/2009 was passed staying the said orders. Subsequently, it transpires that the opposite party withdrew the impugned orders and filed an affidavit to this extent before the writ court. The writ court, by an order dated 29/12/2009, disposed of the writ petition as having 2 become infructuous after recording the fact that the impugned order has been withdrawn by the opposite party. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging that inspite of the impugned orders being withdrawn by the respondent, the applicant is not being allowed to work as the Head of the Department or as a Professor and, therefore, the opposite party is guilty of contempt of the orders of the writ court. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, this court does not find anything to indicate that the opposite party is willfully disobeying the orders of the writ court. The first order of the writ court dated 27th October, 2009 had only stayed the orders dated 22/10/2009 and 23/10/2009. These orders were subsequently withdrawn by the authority concerned which fact was recorded in the order of the writ court dated 29/12/2009 which consequently made the writ petition infructuous and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of. The mere fact that the petitioner is not being allowed to work does not amount to any willful disobedience of any order of the writ court. The appropriate remedy of the applicant lies elsewhere. The contempt application is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.02.2010 Shiv