THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 637 of 2007 O r d e r: Alleging that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the interim orders dated 04.06.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 13485 of 2007 in W.P. No. 10731 of 2007, the petitioner filed this contempt case praying to punish them for contempt. The petitioner states that he is eligible for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, and even though this Court passed interim orders dated 04.06.2007, directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, along with other eligible persons in accordance with the Rules, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in gross violation thereof, did not consider his case, and instead issued proceedings in Rc. No. A1/2273/2007, dated 04.06.2007, promoting respondent No.3 to the said post. He further submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deny him promotion and eliminate him from the seniority list, contrary to the interim orders of this Court, issued proceedings dated 15.06.2007 directing him to appear for medical examination. As respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by not considering his case for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, have deliberately violated the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner contends that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 should be punished for contempt, and thus, he prays to pass appropriate orders, punishing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1-Commissioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Temple. Though the petitioner complains that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in violation of the interim orders dated 04.06.2007, passed by this Court, did not consider his case for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, it is the specific case of respondent No.2, that he having considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, as directed by this Court, vide proceedings dated 04.08.2007, rejected his candidature for promotion, and accordingly, communicated the same to the petitioner under acknowledgement due on 07.08.2007, and to substantiate the said statement, respondent No.2 produced a copy of the proceedings dated 04.08.2007, whereunder, he considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, and rejected the same. Respondent No.2, in the counter filed by him, however, has tendered his apology, for not passing and communicating the orders of rejection of the case of the petitioner for promotion as Upa Pradhana Archaka, in time. Though respondent No.2 produced copy of the proceedings dated 04.08.2007 to show that as directed by this Court, he has considered and rejected the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the reply-affidavit, filed by the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2, as directed by this Court, did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, along with other eligible candidates, and to overcome the consequences of contempt, he fabricated the proceedings dated 04.08.2007, and to substantiate this argument, he relied on the proceedings dated 15.06.2007, issued by respondent No.2, promoting respondent No.3 as Pradhana Archaka, which are dated, much before respondent No.2 considered and rejected the case of the petitioner for promotion. He further submitted that respondent No.2 with a view to eliminate the petitioner from the seniority list of Upa Pradhana Archakas and deny him promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, respondent No. 2 has issued proceedings dated 15.06.2007 directing him to appear for medical examination. Whether respondent No.2 fabricated the proceedings dated 04.08.2007 to overcome the rigor of contempt and whether he has issued proceedings dated 15.06.2007 directing the petitioner to appear for medical examination, to eliminate him from the seniority list of Upa Pradhana Archakas, are questions which cannot be gone into by this Court in this contempt case. Since respondent No.2 has produced proceedings dated 04.08.2007, to show that in compliance of the orders of this Court, he has considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Pradhana Archaka, and rejected the same, and having regard to the fact that the main writ petition is still pending, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be in the fitness of things to keep the contempt pending. Hence, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, which he is entitled to, in the main writ petition. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 28th January, 2011 KSR