ORDER 1. IN ALL THE ABOVENOTED CIVIL APPEALS, SINCE THE SAME CONTROVERSY IS INVOLVED, THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IT APPEARS THAT SOME EMPLOYEES OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE CORPORATION HAD MOVED THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FOR THEIR REGULARISATION IN SERVICE. THAT RELIEF WAS GRANTED BUT THAT ORDER SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IMPUGNED BY FILING SLPS IN THIS COURT. THE MATTER CAME UP FOR DISPOSAL ON 6-2-1998. A THREE-JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT DISPOSED OF SLPS (C) NOS. 27275-77 OF 1995 PROVIDING THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD COMPLETED FIVE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REGULARISATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF GOMS NO. 212 DATED 22-4-1994. THEREAFTER, IT APPEARS THAT SOME OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PARTIES IN THE APPEALS IN HAND, MOVED THE HIGH COURT FOR THEIR REGULARISATION. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT IN ITS ORDER QUOTED THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 6-2-1998 WHICH PROVIDED THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD COMPLETED FIVE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE AND FULFIL OTHER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN GOMS NO. 212/22-4-1994 WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REGULARISATION, GAVE DIRECTIONS ACCORDINGLY. A PERUSAL OF GOMS NO. 212 DATED 22-4-1994 SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS CONDITION (5) WHICH READS AS UNDER: "(5) ABSORPTION SHALL BE AGAINST CLEAR VACANCIES OF POSTS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO BE CONTINUED AS PER WORKLOAD EXCLUDING THE VACANCIES ALREADY NOTIFIED TO THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE." 3. THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANTS FOR THEIR REGULARISATION, HOWEVER, WAS TURNED DOWN BY GORT NO. 651 DATED 23-10-1998. THIS ORDER INDICATES THAT THE POSTS AGAINST WHICH REGULARISATION WAS BEING SOUGHT WERE NOT SANCTIONED A POSTS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SINCE IT IS INDICATED THAT POSTS COULD BE SANCTIONED ONLY BY THE GOVERNMENT. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THE REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION WAS REJECTED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE REJECTION OF THE REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 17-8-1998, THE EMPLOYEES MOVED CONTEMPT PETITION. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THE REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION WAS REJECTED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE REJECTION OF THE REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT ON 17-8-1998, THE EMPLOYEES MOVED CONTEMPT PETITION. THE LEARNED JUDGE WHILE DEALING WITH B THE CONTEMPT MATTER AT ONE PLACE OBSERVED THAT THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WORKING AGAINST THE CLEAR VACANCY BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ALSO DIRECTED THEREAFTER, "THE RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY THE GOVERNMENT IS DIRECTED TO SANCTION THE POST IN A.P. SCHEDULED CASTES FINANCE CORPORATION OF EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT SO THAT THE PETITIONERS CAN BE ABSORBED ON PERMANENT POSTS ... ". THE CONTEMPT PETITION WAS ULTIMATELY CLOSED WITH A DIRECTION TO THE C RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE DATE. 5. THE CORPORATION, THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION, THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND SOME OTHERS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT MATTER. THE DIVISION BENCH WHILE DEALING WITH THE MATTER OBSERVED THAT ONCE A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO REGULARISE THE EMPLOYEES, THE CORPORATION HAD NO OPTION BUT TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CONTEMPT JUDGE WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE CONTEMPT JUDGE WAS COMPETENT OR HAD THE JURISDICTION AT ALL TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION TO THE AUTHORITIES OR TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION THE POSTS. SINCE THE APPEALS HAD ALSO BEEN HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE, IN SOME CASES APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED DIRECTLY UNDER ARTICLE 136 IN THIS COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT MATTER. SOME OTHER APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN CONTEMPT APPEAL. ALL THE APPEALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE BUNCH. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE CORPORATION AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PREFERRED BELATED WRIT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE EMPLOYEES DIRECTING REGULARISATION. ALL THOSE WRIT APPEALS HAVE ALSO BEEN DISMISSED MAINLY ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. SOME OF THE APPEALS IN THE BUNCH ARE AGAINST THE PASSED DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS. 6. ALL THOSE WRIT APPEALS HAVE ALSO BEEN DISMISSED MAINLY ON THE GROUND OF DELAY. SOME OF THE APPEALS IN THE BUNCH ARE AGAINST THE PASSED DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE CORPORATION HAS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED THAT NO DIRECTION COULD BE GIVEN IN CONTEMPT PETITION. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE EMPLOYEES AND HAD DIRECTED REGULARISATION OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD COMPLETED FIVE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE AND ALSO FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN IN GOMS NO. 212 DATED 22-4-1994 AND SINCE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE SCHEME DATED 22 VIZ. CONDITION (5), QUOTED ABOVE PROVIDES THAT REGULARISATION COULD BE ONLY AGAINST CLEAR VACANCIES, THAT POSITION HAD TO BE EXAMINED AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYEES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO SUCH SANCTIONED POSTS WERE AVAILABLE, THEREFORE, THEIR REQUEST FOR REGULARISATION WAS TURNED DOWN WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. IT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE REGULARISATION COULD BE MADE ONLY AGAINST THE SANCTIONED POSTS AND THAT SUCH POSTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE, IS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CONTEMPT JUDGE TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION THE NECESSARY POSTS AGAINST WHICH THE EMPLOYEE PETITIONERS COULD BE REGULARISED. 7. ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HAS BEEN INDICATED ABOVE, THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DIRECTING REGULARISATION OF THE EMPLOYEES, SINCE THE SAID ORDER HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN ANY MANNER. THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCHEME FOR REGULARISATION DATED 24-4-1994. SECONDLY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTEMPT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY DIRECTION PROVIDING ANY SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF TO THE PETITIONERS MOVING THE CONTEMPT PETITION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL V. TARAK NATH GANGULY1 AND NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL V. BISHNU C. BHOI2. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE POSITION UNDER THE LAW THAT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS NO FURTHER DIRECTIONS COULD BE ISSUED BY THE COURT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL V. TARAK NATH GANGULY1 AND NOTIFIED AREA COUNCIL V. BISHNU C. BHOI2. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE POSITION UNDER THE LAW THAT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS NO FURTHER DIRECTIONS COULD BE ISSUED BY THE COURT. IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT THE COURT MAY PUNISH THE CONTEMNOR OTHERWISE NOTICE OF CONTEMPT IS TO BE DISCHARGED. AN ORDER PASSED IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION, COULD NOT BE A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO THE MAIN ORDER GRANTING RELIEF. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN SOME OF THE APPEALS, SUBMIT THAT THE DIVISION BENCH HAS HELD THAT NO APPEAL WOULD LIE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CONTEMPT JUDGE SINCE NO ONE WAS PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT. WE FIND THE ARGUMENT TO BE FALLACIOUS. IF A DIRECTION IS GIVEN BY A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AGAINST SUCH ORDERS AN APPEAL WOULD LIE TO A COURT NORMALLY EXERCISING THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SECONDLY, THIS GROUND LOSES IMPORTANCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN SOME OF THE MATTERS THE AUTHORITIES AND THE STATE HAVE FILED APPEALS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE DISPOSING OF CONTEMPT MATTER, DIRECTING THE AUTHORITIES AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SANCTION THE POSTS. NO SUCH DIRECTION COULD BE GIVEN IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. 9. INSOFAR AS THE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN THE WRIT APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THOSE APPEALS. IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHETHER THOSE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF DELAY OR ON MERITS. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE TO CONSIDER THE REGULARISATION OF THE EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. SUCH AN ORDER WAS PASSED IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT PASSED ON 6-2-1998, IN THE MATTER RELATING TO ANOTHER SET OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION. THERE WAS HARDLY ANY GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH INTERFERENCE COULD BE MADE IN THE WRIT APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN THE WRIT APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT APPEALS VIZ. CAS NOS. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH IN THE WRIT APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT APPEALS VIZ. CAS NOS. 5451, 5441, 5452, 5448 AND 5453 OF 2002 ARE DISMISSED AND THOSE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN APPEALS ARISING OUT OF CONTEMPT MATTER VIZ. CAS NOS. 5442, 5454, 5447, 5449 AND 5450 OF 2002 ARE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE CONTEMPT JUDGE AND THE DIVISION BENCH IN CONTEMPT APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE. 11. WE WOULD, HOWEVER WHILE PARTING WITH THE MATTER PARTICULARLY RELATING TO APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IN WRIT APPEALS LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT ALL THESE EMPLOYEES SEEM TO BE WORKING SINCE A LONG TIME, THEIR REGULARISATION COULD NOT BE DONE AS IT IS INDICATED THAT THERE ARE NO SANCTIONED POSTS. LEGALITIES AND TECHNICALITIES APART, WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD CONSIDER THE MATTER FAIRLY AND SYMPATHETICALLY AND MAY LIKE TO TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE DECISION IN RESPECT OF THESE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE CONTINUING SINCE LONG. 12. THERE WOULD, HOWEVER, BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.