Vide judgment dated 30.4.2001 passed in SWP No. 304/2000 titled Ved Singh v. State of J&K and others, following direction was passed: "In view of the aforesaid discussion , this writ petition is allowed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to operate the wait list which finds mention in File No. PN4-Estt-1/95 RE-II, Works Department Office PR Secy ( Works) Section Co ordination on the subject Absorption of unemployed Engineers in Govt. Service ( constitution of committee ) at its page 322, as Annexure-C duly signed by Secretary Service Selection Board, Jammu. By operating this list respondents 1 and 2 shall do the needful by issuing the appointment letters to such candidates in order of merit to make the number in RBA category to 36 in Civil Engineering , of course subject to fulfillment of other requirements as per law. Steps in this behalf will be taken on or before 15.6.2001 by respondents 1 and 2. No. costs." This direction came to be issued in the background of the circumstances as noticed in the aforesaid judgment. Reference to the same is called for with view to examine the controversy involved in the present contempt petition. Vide Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1997 dated 29.4.1997, applications were invited for the posts of Junior Engineers Grade-II in Civil/Mechanical/Chemical Engineering. Large number of candidates applied for the same and the petitioner was one of them. As against total posts of 542, 374 vacancies were required to be filled up in Civil Engineering Department, 162 vacancies in Mechanical Department and 6 vacancies in Chemical Engineering Department. Petitioner with Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil, was a candidate for Junior Engineer( Civil) and also belongs to RBA category. On completion of the selection process, a select list was issued vide Government Order No. 181/PW of 1999 dated 20.6.1999 whereby as many as 366 candidates were appointed to various wings and vide subsequent order No. 319 of 1999 dated 2.12.99, wings were allotted to the appointees. As far the Civil Engineering is concerned, there were 36 posts for the candidates belonging to RBA category and as against 36 vacancies, 29 candidates joined and 7 vacancies remained unfilled. The selection body had also prepared a waiting list in RBA category and petitioner figured at serial No. 7 in the said waiting list. Similarly, there were waiting lists for other categories. The selection body had also prepared a waiting list in RBA category and petitioner figured at serial No. 7 in the said waiting list. Similarly, there were waiting lists for other categories. One Ved Singh, who was also in the waiting list for the Civil Engineering, filed SWP No. 304/2000, seeking direction for operation of the waiting list so as to fill up unfilled advertised vacancies due to non-joining of the certain selectees. This court vide judgment dated 30.4.2001 issued direction referred to above. State and other official respondents including J&K State Recruitment Board filed LPA No. 519/2001 which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.8.2003 with the following order: "For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that plea of the State -- appellant cannot be entertained which is not justified. Therefore, we maintain the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal." In view of the direction of the writ court, directing respondents to operate waiting list in RBA category so as to appoint candidates on the basis of merit against the available vacancies, petitioner served notice dated 20.12.2003 seeking his appointment on the basis of his figuring in waiting list at serial No. 7. After dismissal of LPA, State Government issued Government Order No. 224- PW of 2004 dated 21.5.2004 whereby Ved Singh writ petitioner in SWP No. 304/2000, came to be appointed. However, the waiting list was not operated in respect to other candidates upto available unfilled vacancies. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this court seeking implementation of the judgment dated 30.4.2001 passed in SWP No. 304/2000 on the ground that in view of the said direction, he being in the waiting list at serial No. 7, is entitled to be appointed on the basis of his merit against unfilled seven vacancies. In response to the notice of contempt petition, statement of facts has been filed by respondents. Only ground for denying benefit of judgment to the petitioner is, that the petitioner was not party to the said judgment passed in SWP No. 304/2000 and therefore, he is not entitled to seek implementation of the same or any benefit therein. Mr. In response to the notice of contempt petition, statement of facts has been filed by respondents. Only ground for denying benefit of judgment to the petitioner is, that the petitioner was not party to the said judgment passed in SWP No. 304/2000 and therefore, he is not entitled to seek implementation of the same or any benefit therein. Mr. S.C. Gupta, AAG appearing for respondents has vehemently urged that the judgment dated 30.4.2001 is applicable to the case of writ petitioner therein , who has already been appointed in compliance to the said judgment and the benefit does not flow to other candidates including the petitioner . Therefore, respondents are not obliged to implement the judgment so as to confer any benefit upon the petitioner. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Hira Tikoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 3648 wherein the Apex Court held as under: "Now we are left with the individuals and parties falling in none of the three categories i.e. (1) consentees, (2) non- consentees , or (3) allottees of one kanal of plot. They were not parties before the High Court and were invited to participate in the discussions and negotiations which have taken place during the pendency of these cases before us. They have approached by way of special leave petitions or applications seeking interventions or impleadment as parties in the present cases. This group of individuals and parties , who were not parties before the High Court either as petitioners or respondents and who are merely intervenors or parties seeking impleadments and /or have sought permission to file special leave petitions cannot be allowed to join race for allotment of available alternative plots. It will have to be presumed that having not ventilated their grievances and enforced their rights, if any, earlier stage, they have abandoned their claims. Merely because during pendency of court proceedings, some rounds of negotiations and discussions took place in which the Administration also invited them, would not furnish them a cause of action to raise their claims which they had earlier given up by their inaction and lapse. Merely because during pendency of court proceedings, some rounds of negotiations and discussions took place in which the Administration also invited them, would not furnish them a cause of action to raise their claims which they had earlier given up by their inaction and lapse. In adjusting equities and on rule of fairness, these who have languished and slept over their rights have to be denied any relief more so when there has been such a big time lag between the original allotment and the proposed allotment of alternative plots. In the meantime, there have been various developments including the escalation of land prices. Any speculative deals and attempt to take chance of getting allotment by such parties have to be discouraged. We, therefore, refuse to grant any relief to remaining class or consentees or non- consentees and other allottees who were not parties in the litigation before the High Court." The moot question that falls for consideration in this contempt petition is, whether petitioner has any locus or cause to seek implementation of the judgment, even though not being party to the same. As far judgment dated 30.4.2001 is concerned, the relevant extract, which contains the mandate of the court, is being noticed below: "... this writ petition is allowed and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to operate the wait list ... x x x x x x x x xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx By operating this list respondents 1 and 2 shall do the needful by issuing the appointment letters to such candidates in order of merit to make the number in RBA category to 36 in Civil Engineering, of course subject to fulfillment of other requirements as per law." Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates the intention of the court. What is gatherable is, that the direction of the court was to operate the waiting list till 36 advertised vacancies in RBA category are filled up by issuing appointment letters to such candidates who are next in order of merit in the waiting list. Petitioner is admittedly at serial No. 7 of the waiting list and this fact has not been denied or disputed by respondents in statement of facts. Similarly, they admitted the fact that as against 36 advertised vacancies in RBA category, only 29 vacancies are filled and seven vacancies remained unfilled. Petitioner is admittedly at serial No. 7 of the waiting list and this fact has not been denied or disputed by respondents in statement of facts. Similarly, they admitted the fact that as against 36 advertised vacancies in RBA category, only 29 vacancies are filled and seven vacancies remained unfilled. Therefore, the waiting list of RBA category was to be operated upon upto serial No. 7. Petitioner being at serial No. 7, definitely is entitled to the benefit of the direction of the court. The contention of the respondents is that petitioner being not a party to SWP No. 304/2000, hence not entitled to seek enforcement of the judgment through the medium of contempt petition. A similar issue came to be considered by the Apex Court in Dr. Santosh Kumari (Mrs) v. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) (1) SCC 269. In the aforesaid case, certain vacancies were filled up on All India Examination basis wherein one candidate did not join and one seat remained unfilled. The question arose whether the said seat can be allotted to a candidate who has approached the court or on the basis of merit. The Apex Court on consideration of the said issue, held as under: "... The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means to approach the court..." In the present case, there was clear direction of the court to operate the waiting list so as to fill up unfilled vacancies to achieve the target of 36 advertised vacancies in RBA category. This leaves no room for the respondents to deny appointment to wait list candidates, who come in merit against unfilled vacancies. The case cited by Mr. S.C. Gupta, AAG has no bearing on the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. Since the respondents in their wisdom understood the judgment as per the stand taken in the statement of facts, I allow another opportunity to respondents to implement the judgment dated 30.4.2001 passed in SWP No. 304/2000 and upheld by Honble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.8.2003 passed in LPA(SW) No. 519/2001. Since the respondents in their wisdom understood the judgment as per the stand taken in the statement of facts, I allow another opportunity to respondents to implement the judgment dated 30.4.2001 passed in SWP No. 304/2000 and upheld by Honble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.8.2003 passed in LPA(SW) No. 519/2001. Let judgment dated 30.4.2001 be implemented by operating waiting list upto serial No. 7 within a period of three months and submit compliance report to this court, failing which Registrar Judicial shall place the matter before this court on expiry of three months for initiation of suo moto contempt . Petitioner is also entitled to approach the court for initiation of contempt proceedings on the failure of respondents to pass appropriate orders, in view of the observations made hereinabove. This contempt petition is, however, disposed of at this stage.