Judgment :- 1. This petition by Sri Devassy Manjooran, Professor, Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha prays for action in contempt being taken against Sri. Sivaramakrishna Iyer, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Central Zone for flouting the direction issued by this court in C. M. P. 4877 in O. P. 1491 of 1973. 2. Sri Devassy Manjooran was appointed Additional Professor in Nirmala College with effect from 13 1972 on a scale of pay of Rs. 700-1000. The appointment was reported to the University as required by S.53 (10) of the Kerala University Act, 19,69. His salary was paid by the management till September, 1972. Thereafter in consequence of agreements concluded between the Government on the one hand and the private management on the other, payment of salary to teachers of private colleges was undertaken by the Government with effect from the 1st September, 1972. In the meantime, the Registrar of the University took objection to the appointment of the petitioner as Additional Professor, as according to him there was no such post sanctioned by the University and no provision was made by the government for grant of aid of such a post. In view of this, the Principal refused to present the petitioner's pay bill as Additional Professor. It was under these circumstances that O. P. 1491/73 was filed by him in this court under Art.226 of the Constitution for necessary reliefs against the Registrar, the Manager, the Principal and the State of Kerala. C. M. P. 4877/73 was moved in O. P. 1491/73 for interim orders directing the respondents to forebear from taking any steps or doing any act inconsistent with, or prejudicial to the status and emoluments of the petitioner as an Additional Professor pending final disposal of the O.P. This court on 8-5-1973 passed orders, "notice and interim direction as prayed for." Even after this, the pay bill was not sanctioned by the respondent, the Deputy Director. He insisted in getting the orders from the Director regarding the admissibility of the claim. The Principal thereafter refrained from presenting bills. On getting intimation from the Principal, the petitioner's advocate sent Ex. P2 notice to the respondent apprising him of the position and telling him point-blank that if the bill was refused it would in effect be flouting the orders of this court and he would have to face an action in contempt for his conduct. On getting intimation from the Principal, the petitioner's advocate sent Ex. P2 notice to the respondent apprising him of the position and telling him point-blank that if the bill was refused it would in effect be flouting the orders of this court and he would have to face an action in contempt for his conduct. Even that did not deter him from "contumacious conduct". In this communication, Ex. P3, rejecting the bill he told the Principal that the claim could be admitted only when orders to that effect were issued by 'competent authority.' The petitioner having thus been frustrated in his attempts was compelled to seek remedy in contempt from this court. 3. The respondent, in his counter would allege that he was not aware that the petitioner was appointed Additional Professor in the Nirmala College. To his knowledge there is no sanctioned category of Additional Professor in private colleges and the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved. The respondent would proceed: "When the bill claiming salary as Additional Professor was presented to me by the Principal, subsequent to the interim order of this honourable court, I had to return the bill because I could countersign the bills claiming salary only in respect of posts for which there is sanction and approval by the University." Finally he concludes by saying: "If this honourable court were to hold that the conduct of mine amounts to contempt of court I humbly tender my unconditional apology to this honourable court and pray that I may be excused and the proceedings against me dropped". 4. We are not, in the least, satisfied of the bona fides of the plea put forward by the respondent. As one occupying a high position in the educational hierachy, it was his duty to obey the directions of this court without demur and without trying to find reasons to escape out of the situation. Whether the appointment of Additional Professor was approved or not, the respondent's duty was to obey the orders of this court. As one occupying a high position in the educational hierachy, it was his duty to obey the directions of this court without demur and without trying to find reasons to escape out of the situation. Whether the appointment of Additional Professor was approved or not, the respondent's duty was to obey the orders of this court. The order directed him to 'forebear from taking any steps or doing any act inconsistent with, or prejudicial to, the status and emoluments of the petitioner as an additional professor, pending final disposal of the O.P.' When this order was shown to him his reaction was that he could act only as directed by the University, which according to him is the authority competent to issue any order in the matter. This attitude of his is reprehensible, to say the least. The O.P. is finally to be decided on its merits. In the contempt proceedings the merits or demerits of the O.P. are irrelevant. As observed in Narain Singh v. Hardayal Singh Harika (AIR. 1958 Punjab 180): "The order granting injunction might have been erroneous, or granted improvidently, or obtained irregularly; that will not excuse the person violating it. The only questions open for consideration in proceedings for contempt for violating an injunction are whether the court had jurisdiction to award the injunction and whether it had in fact been violated. The Court, in contempt proceedings, will not inquire into the merits of the case in which the injunction was issued." The respondent has a further contention that he is not a party to the C.M.P. from which the impugned order was issued; but he was aware of the passing of the order and finally he was told by the advocate by a registered notice that such an order was passed by the High Court and if he violated it, it would amount to contempt of court. Even after that, the respondent continued his defiant attitude. Even after that, the respondent continued his defiant attitude. In the Punjab case cited, the learned judge observed as follows in meeting the contention that the contemner was not a party to the proceedings: "The violation or disobedience of an injunction by a court having jurisdiction in the matter, when committed by a party to the injunction suit, or by a third party, having actual notice, is a contempt of court are who is not a party to the injunction suit, but who is within the class of personswhose conduct is intended to be restrained is guilty of contempt." 5. In this state of the law, we have no hesitation to say that the action of the respondent is unjustifiable and is unworthy of the position he occupies in the" department. As a man of ordinary prudence he should have exercised greater care and circumspection in dealing with a matter like this, in which a prohibitive order was issued from this court. Even though he was not a formal party to the C.M.P. from which the order was issued, the order as such was directed against him and he was told by registered notice by the advocate that the order was directed against him and if he violated it he would have to face an action in contempt. Even then wisdom did not dawn on him. Anyway, he having expressed regret and tendered unconditional apology, we do not want to precipitate the matter and impose any punishment on him. The apology tendered is accepted and the proceedings are dropped.