ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. According to the petitioner, the order dated 28.2.2001 passed in CWJC No. 829 of 2001 has not yet been complied with Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties with reference to paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, submits that the order cannot be complied with because the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, he has not been called for interview. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 28.2.2001, an order has been passed and it is placed at running page 23 and upon perusal of paragraph 4 thereof, It is evident that only those people were interviewed whose names were recommended by the Employment Exchange. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the order of this Court which was passed on 28.2.2001 is based on the order dated 1.8.2000 which was passed in MJC No. 139 of 1999 (R). He places reliance on the following paragraphs, which, according to him, was passed on consent of the parties: "After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the respective pleadings filed on their behalf, we pass the following order with consent of the parties: (i) The details of the notifications under which their land were acquired. (ii) The name of the family members in whose favour award was made. (iii) Whether any member of his displaced family was employed by the management under the scheme. Such information must be furnished to the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, by 31st of August. 2000. (2) On receipt of such Information, the opp. party/Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, shall verify the correctness of the informations and forward his report to the management within four months from the date of receipt of such informations on affidavit. (3) On receipt of the report from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, the opp. party/management will Implement the order of this Court strictly in accordance with the said report within three months and the compliance report must be submitted to this Court forthwith. (4) It goes without saying that if, ultimately, any of the said informations is found to be incorrect, the authority concerned will Initiate appropriate proceedings including termination of the services of the persons concerned. This application is accordingly disposed of." 3. According to Mr. (4) It goes without saying that if, ultimately, any of the said informations is found to be incorrect, the authority concerned will Initiate appropriate proceedings including termination of the services of the persons concerned. This application is accordingly disposed of." 3. According to Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, the Petitioner complied with the direction Nos. 1, 2 and 3 quoted above and the Director, Project-Land Rehabilitation In turn also complied and sent his recommendation to the Management by letter dated 11.4.2001 as contained In Annexure-3, but inspite thereof, the Management has not called the petitioner either for interview nor have they included his name in the panel. 4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the aforementioned order quoted above cannot be read in isolation because it has to be read along with following paragraph: "Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel for the opp. Parties 1 to 3, has fairly submitted that the management is willing to implement the scheme, provided the basic information in terms of the aforesaid scheme is supplied to it in order to give effect to the proposed scheme and to implement the directions issued by the Division Bench, as mentioned above. It is submitted that the proposed scheme was introduced in order to give employment to the candidates of the displaced family whose lands were acquired in terms of the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, at the time of setting up of the Bokaro Steel Plant. It is accordingly submitted that unless and until the following information regarding (1) notification by which the lands were acquired (2) the detail information of the family in whose favour the award was made and lastly whether any member of the displaced family was employed by the management, are made available to the management, it would create various problems for the management, to give effect to its own scheme. It is further submitted that though a list of the candidates was received from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, as far back as in October, 1988, yet without the requisite information, as aforesaid resulting the delay in implementing the order." (Italics by this Court) 5. Mr. It is further submitted that though a list of the candidates was received from the Director, Project, Land and Rehabilitation, as far back as in October, 1988, yet without the requisite information, as aforesaid resulting the delay in implementing the order." (Italics by this Court) 5. Mr. Ananda Sen further submits that upon perusal of the aforementioned paragraph quoted above, there are at least 4 (four) instances of reference to the scheme and the scheme was also quoted in the same order and the same reads as follows: "It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that inspite of the specific direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court as far back as on 14.4.1998, the said order/directions have not been complied with till date. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed scheme of the Management was accepted by the Division Bench and pursuant thereto the aforesaid directions were issued, but for the reasons best known to the management its own scheme has not been given effect to, albeit two years have already elapsed. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Sinha, the proposed scheme of the respondent/Steel Authority of India, is to be noticed which reads thus: "Proposed Scheme.-(i) that since the list of candidates called for interview in the year 1992 has become very old and was cancelled once, the appellant company may be allowed to go in for a fresh notification to the Local Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates against vacancies. In the list of candidates to be sponsored against the notification, to be sent for the purpose, displaced candidates from families displaced as per the Land Acquisition Notification issued at the time of setting up of Bokaro Steel Plant, from which no body lias been employed so far, may be included. The writ petitioners falling in this category may also be considered for sponsorship. Similarly, those of the remaining displaced candidates who were left in the panel of 1991 which has been made inoperative in terms of the order passed by this Honble Court vide order dated 26.6.1996 may also be including the list of candidates. Representation to the reserved communities like Schedule Caste. Schedule Tribe and Other Backward Communities may be allowed to be provided as per the Government directives on Reservation. Representation to the reserved communities like Schedule Caste. Schedule Tribe and Other Backward Communities may be allowed to be provided as per the Government directives on Reservation. (ii) That a fresh interview may be held for selection of suitable candidates sponsored as above against the said notification of vacancies. (iii) That the Director Project, Land and Rehabilitation may be directed to arrange for verification of the bondfldes to persons stated to be displaced candidates in the said list and this process may be directed to be completed before drawing the schedule for interview for such candidates. (iv) Candidates from the 1991 panel who were previously offered employment but were prevented from joining by reason of the stay order grated by the Court on 3.4.1996 should be allowed to join subject to verification of their status as member of displaced persons from which no one has been appointed and subject to physical fitness. (v) The persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ petition prior to the stay order should be allowed to continue in employment." 6. According to Mr. Ananda Sen, the scheme itself is very categorical and it lays down inter alia that the Company may go for fresh notification to the Local Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates against vacancies. In other words, according to him, unless the names are sponsored by the Local Employment Exchange, there cannot be any employment even if the Director, Project-Land Rehabilitation sends his re commendations to the Management. 7. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, however, controverts and disputes such a contention of Mr. Ananda Sen and submits that in the same paragraph which deals with the proposed scheme it has been observed that the Writ Petitioner falling the Category le., displaced families from which no body has been employed) may also be considered for sponsorship and those of the remaining displaced candidates who were left in the panel of 1991 may also be included in the list of candidates. According to this Court however, this has to be done at the level of the Employment Exchange. 8. According to this Court however, this has to be done at the level of the Employment Exchange. 8. Therefore, upon perusal of the order dated 1.8.2000 it is therefore, clear that the Scheme is the foundation condition precedent for purposes of giving effect to the order and therefore unless the name of the petitioner was actually sponsored, he cannot claim as a matter of right that he must be included in the list of candidates by the Management. Upon consideration of the a foresaid relevant facts, this Court finds that there is no contempt which can be said to have been committed. Accordingly the Contempt Application is dismissed. However, it goes without saying that if the petitioner does fall in the category of displaced persons, then he will have the liberty to approach the concerned authority in accordance with law so that his name may be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 9. This Contempt Application is accordingly closed and dismissed.