HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.C. No. 1738 of 2009 DATED: 22.01.2010 Between: M. Narasimha Raju .. Petitioner And Arshad Ahmed and two others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.31213 of 2007 in W.P. No.23978 of 2007. It appears that the petitioner made a representation dated 25.07.2002 requesting the 2nd respondent to consider his case for appointment in the 2nd respondent-Bank on compassionate grounds, but the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 30.03.2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner. Challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No.19097 of 2007, and this Court, by order dated 10.10.2007, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of six weeks, but according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued a letter dated 12.10.2007 rejecting his case with false and untenable grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P. No.23978 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds, and this Court, by the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.31213 of 2007 in W.P.No.23978 of 2007, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, and suspended the proceedings dated 12.10.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent. Today, when the matter is taken up admission, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court a detailed order dated 14.12.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent-Regional Manager, which indicates that the case of the petitioner was examined afresh and found that he is not entitled to any appointment on compassionate grounds. Inasmuch as the case of the petitioner was already considered and rejected by the 3rd respondent for the reasons assigned in his order dated 14.12.2009, no contempt, much less willful contempt of the orders dated 15.09.2008 passed by this Court, can be alleged against the respondents. Hence, this Contempt Case is closed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order, dated 14.12.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent and working out his remedies as may be available to him under law. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 22nd January, 2010 bcj