JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 arises out of an Order dated 31.3.2004 passed in WP (S) No. 1628 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has directed the appellants to show-cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court after holding that they have committed such contempt. 2. We wish to deal with the Writ petition first so as to enable us to decided the dispute between the parties and also to come to a conclusion as to whether the appellants of L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 have, in fact. committed contempt or not. 3. in the writ petition, there are petitioners and each one of them submit that they are Category-1 displaced persons ad the their names, after verification, had been forwarded to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 8. for purposes of appointing them but since nothing was being done thereafter, a writ of mandamus should therefore be issued directing the said respondent No. 2 to include their names in Category-I and to fix their seniority interse on the basis of their age and then to appoint them as per guideline passed in an earlier contempt application, which was registered before the then Ranch! Bench of the Patna High Court as M.J.C. 139/1999 (R). This contempt application arose out of two Letters Patent Appeals which were registered as L.P.S. No. 161/96 (R) and L.P.A. No. 162/96 (R) both of which, in turn, arose out of CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R). 4. According to the petitioners, they apprehend that they would be left out because the respondents are about to make appointments from a list of 207 persons prepared arbitrarily by the respondent No. 2 although by reason of Orders of the High Court referred to above, the respondent No. 8 had actually for warded the names of 286 persons including the petitioners in Category-1 for their appointment. 5. it appears from the pleadings that about 382 persons moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Honble Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R) which was disposed off on 26.6.1996 vide Annexrue-1 appended to the instant Writ Application. 5. it appears from the pleadings that about 382 persons moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Honble Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R) which was disposed off on 26.6.1996 vide Annexrue-1 appended to the instant Writ Application. Those petitioners also claimed to be displaced persons, their lands having been acquired by the State of Bihar in favour of Steel Authority of india Limited for setting up the Bokaro Steel Plant. They were aggrieved by a communication dated 11.5,1995 by which they were intimated that no appointments would be made on the post of khalasi out of a Notification dated 5.9.1991. They therefore prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to consider their cases for appointment on the post of khalasi taking into consideration that they were all displaced persons. it further appears that the respondents had rejected the claims of the petitioners for appointment against a Notification dated 5.9.1991 on the following grounds : a. Because the interview could not take place in February. 1992 on account of non availability of the D. P.L. R.; b. Because there was an already existing panel prepared in the year 1991 and till that panel was not exhausted, it was not desirable to make appointments; c. Because in general, there was no need for khalasi which could be tilled up from the 1991 panel, which, was still alive; and d. Because there were complaints regarding the displaced person who had been earlier called for interview and the complaints were as to whether they were actually displaced persons or not? in the absence of a consultation with the D.P.L.R.. this could not be verified. 6. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed with the following observations : According, i hold that the impugned decision, as contained in letter dated llth May. 1995 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india and set aside the same. As the respondents are in need to appoint khalasis. this could not be verified. 6. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed with the following observations : According, i hold that the impugned decision, as contained in letter dated llth May. 1995 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india and set aside the same. As the respondents are in need to appoint khalasis. which will be evident from the fact that they have continued to make appointments during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents are directed to nil up all such posts of khalasi after calling for interview from amongst the persons who were so called for interview as back as in April, 1992 and whose names were recommended by the Employment Exchange in pursuance of requisition dated 5th September, 1991 including the petitioners. After selection of the eligible candidates, the appointments to the post of khalasi be made strictly in accordance with the position in the panel. Son far as the post of khalasi which have already been filled up by respondents during the pendency of the writ petition is concerned, such appointments being guided by the principles of Us pendency, the respondents are directed to terminate the services of such khalasi who were appointed out of 1991 panel in between 6th September, 1995 till date, after giving notice to them. Such posts be also filled up from the panel which is to be prepared by the respondents after due interview, as ordered above. I have kept in mind that the person who have been appointed to the post of khalasis out of the 1991 panel are not the party-respondents in the present writ petition, but in a similar situation in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Ram Gopal Shukla, (super), the Supreme Court held that such persons may be proper parties but not necessary parties, having been appointed against the principles of law. in this case. their appointments were much precarious, they having been appointed hurriedly during the pendency of the writ petition which can be construed to be an appointment subject to the decision of this Court. Respondents will comply with directions within a period of ...,..,,.. (illegible) The writ petition is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions." 7. in this case. their appointments were much precarious, they having been appointed hurriedly during the pendency of the writ petition which can be construed to be an appointment subject to the decision of this Court. Respondents will comply with directions within a period of ...,..,,.. (illegible) The writ petition is allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions." 7. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order, M/s, Steel Authority of india Limited, filed L.P.A. No. 161/1996 (R) and L.P.A. No. 162 of 1996 (R) and both were disposed off on 14.4.1998 by which certain guidelines were given relating to appointment after hearing the parties. it appears that in those Letters Patent Appeals, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R) was confirmed and the Steel Authority of india Limited was directed to follow the following guidelines : a. M/s Steel Authority was to prepare a list containing the names of displaced persons in accordance with Clause-I of a Proposed scheme within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. b. The list so prepared was to be sent to the Director. Project, Land and Rehabilitation (D.P.L.R.. for short) for verification and he was to verify the bonafides of the status and claims of such persons and submit a report to the Steel Authority with in three months from the date of receipt of a request for such verification. c. Thereafter, M/s Steel Authority was to hold interviews for selection of suitable candidates and prepare a panel containing the names of the displaced persons within two months, d. The persons whose names were included in this panel were then to have been placed two categories and employment was to be given to those candidates whose names were included in Category-1 and them the names were to be placed in Category-11 for consideration. e. Those persons who were appointed during the pendency of the writ petition prior to an order of stay passed on 3.4.1996, were to be allowed to continue in service and persons who were included in the 1991 panel and who had been issued appointment letters prior to that order of stay passed on 3,4.1996 but who could not join because of the said stay order, were also to be allowed to join service subject to verification of their claims. The reference to a proposed scheme mentioned above therefore becomes necessary to be taken note of and this scheme finds place in the order dated 1.8.2000 (Annexure-2) and the same, for convenience, s being reproduced hereunder ; 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 has 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 included in the list candidates. Representation to the reserved communities like Scheduled Caste. Scheduled 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 bonafides of 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 granted 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. 8. (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. 8. it was in the background of the aforementioned guidelines made in the writ petition, taking into consideration the proposed scheme referred to above that the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the Steel Authority of india Limited in M.J.C. No 139 of 1999 (R) had made a fair submission to the effect 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 implement the directions issued by the Division Bench." [quoted from the order 1.8.2000 passed in M.J.C. No. 139 of 1999 (R)l. 9. it would also be necessary to take into consideration the submissions made before the said Court in relation to the proposed scheme when it was stated and submitted that the said scheme was introduced in order to give employment to candidates of the displaced family whose. lands were acquired in terms of the Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act at the time f setting up of the Bokaro Steel Plant. 10. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances. M.J.C. No. 139 of 1999 (R) was disposed off on 1.8.2000 and the following directions were made with consent of the parties :] (vi) Candidates who intended to be appointed on the post in question were directed to furnish the following information : (a) the details of the Notification under which their lands were acquired; (b) the name of the family members in whose favour the award was made; and (c) an information was to be given as to whether any member of the displaced family was employed by the management the scheme. (vii) Such information were to be furnished to the D.P.L.R. by 31.8.2000; (viii) On receipt of such information, the opposite party/D.P.L.R. was to verify the correctness of the information and forward his report to the management within four months from the dated of receipt of that information on affidavit; (ix) On receipt of the report from the D.P.L.R.. (vii) Such information were to be furnished to the D.P.L.R. by 31.8.2000; (viii) On receipt of such information, the opposite party/D.P.L.R. was to verify the correctness of the information and forward his report to the management within four months from the dated of receipt of that information on affidavit; (ix) On receipt of the report from the D.P.L.R.. the management was to implement the order of this Court strictly in accordance with the said report within three months and compliance report in relation thereto was also to be submitted to this Court forthwith; and (x) if any of the information was found to be incorrect, the concerned authority was given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings including termination of service of those who gave such incorrect information. 11. it is stated that on the basis of the aforementioned order, displaced persons filed applications and the respondent No. 8 herein (D.P.L.R.) began the process of scrutiny and verification and thereafter sent the names to the management for preparation of list in Category-1. 12. Thereafter, the said D.P.L.R. again forwarded the names of 60 more displaced person and the names of these petitioners herein (20 in number) are said to be included in that list of 60 persons. 13. it is further stated that the D.P.L.R. then sent a letter dated 4.4.2002 addressed to the executive Director (P and A) [respondent No. 3] wherein he stated that he had already transmitted a list of 276 persons for placement in the Category-I list but the management had made available a list of only 207 persons. it was further pointed out that as per the order of the High Court all displaced persons in Category-1 were to be given employment but only 207 persons had been given out by the management and therefore, a request was made by the D.P.L.R. to include the remaining 79 persons in Category-1 list so as to complete the total of 286. 14. Even thereafter, the D.P.L.R. once again sent a letter on 18.9.2002 addressed to the said Executive Director wherein he stated about his having forwarded the names of 60 additional persons including the names of the present petitioners and also stated that the management was making unnecessary correspondence in this matter. He therefore again requested that immediate steps should be taken for employment of the persons concerned. 15. He therefore again requested that immediate steps should be taken for employment of the persons concerned. 15. it is further pleaded that the management thereafter sought clarifications from the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter a fresh enquiry was made in relation to these 60 displaced persons which is said to include the names of the petitioners herein and by letter dated 6.1.2003, the D.P.L.R. informed the Executive Director that out of these 60,24 of them "status changed" displaced persons and 28 were "displaced Pratisthanis." After having so described the status of these persons, the D.P.L.R. requested that early action should be taken for their employment. 16. it has been stated in paragraph-9 of the writ petition that except the petitioner No. 20, the names of the remaining petitioners are included in the list containing the names of 24 displaced persons (status changed) and that the petitioner No. 20 in a "directly displaced person" whose name had been forwarded by the D.P.L.R, for inclusion in Category-1 by letter dated 20.7.2002. 17. Although the petitioners have stated in paragraph-10 that their names find placed in the list of category-I, yet when we read the aforementioned statement made in paragraph-9. it is evident that these petitioners have themselves admitted that all of them. except the petitioner No. 20 are "status changed displaced persons." 18. it is in this context that we have to once again look back over our shoulders and reappraise the orders passed in the earlier cases. This has to be done by taking note of the proposed scheme as well. The said .proposed scheme was at least specific on the issue that the list of candidates to be sponsored against the notification, was supposed to include only those candidates from families who were displaced as per the Land Acquisition Notification at the time of setting up of the Bokaro Steel Plant. Similarly, the remaining displaced persons who had been left out in the panel of 1991 could also be included. While disposing off the Contempt Application, the Division Bench also made the following directions : " 1. The candidates who intend to be appointed on the post in question are directed to furnish the following informations affidavit : (i) The details of the notification under which their land were acquired. (ii) The name of the family members in whose favour award was made. The candidates who intend to be appointed on the post in question are directed to furnish the following informations affidavit : (i) The details of the notification 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 informations must be furnished to the Director. Project, Land and Rehabilitation, by 31st of August, 2000. 2, On receipt of such informations, 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 proceeding including termination of the services of the persons concerned." 19. Now in the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated in paragraph-5 that the names of 207 displaced persons who conformed to the norms as per the guidelines and/or directions mentioned above, were included in Category-1 whereafter the list was sent for reverification. it has also been stated that after the verification was made, it came to the notice of the management that some candidates who belonged to "employed families" and who had got their "status with regard to their family changed" for purposes of circumventing the directions of the Honble Court were included in the list. it was further stated that except the name of Arun Kumar Sinha (petitioner No. 20), the names of all the other petitioners appeared in that list of 60 person with an observation that they did not conform to the norms set out by the High Court. it was. further stated that the name of Arun Kumar Singh was originally set as a Category-11 candidate but his status was subsequently changed to Category-11. it was. further stated that the name of Arun Kumar Singh was originally set as a Category-11 candidate but his status was subsequently changed to Category-11. it is thus the case of the respondents that when the status has been changed, it is not as per the guideline and the norms fixed by the High Court and any appointment from amongst such "status changed candidates" would amount to going against the spirit of the Courts Order. it has also been stated that such cases are based on manipulations and do not deserve any consideration. it is in this context that it would be relevant to quote the statements made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in Paragraph-5 of the Counter Affidavit : "5. That the petitioners in this writ application relates to the dispute regarding the employment of displaced person in the respondent company which was decided by this Honourable Court vide orders dated 7.4.1998 and 1.8.2000 passed in L.P.A. No. 161 and 162 of 1996 (R) and M.J.C. No. 139 of 1999 respectively. i further say that as per these orders displaced persons related to the disputes were to called for interview after verification made by D.P.L.R. about the bonafide of their status. Accordingly, as per the direction of the Honourable Court list of the displaced persons related to the dispute were sent to the D.P.L.R. for verification in terms of the aforesaid orders. i further say that to facilitate the process on request, based on verification done by D.P.L.R., a short list of Category-1 displaced persons only, containing names of 207 displaced persons who were confirming to the norms, was sent to D.P.L.R. against for re-verification before calling them for interview. i further say that as per the order of the Honourable Court dated 7.4.1998 employment was to be provided to only those displaced persons who belonged to the families of displaced as per the land acquisition notification issued at the time of setting up of Bokaro steel Plant from which no body had been employed. However, from the verification report it was observed that a few candidates who belonged to employed families had got their status with regard to their family changed to circumvent the direction of the Honourable High Court. However, from the verification report it was observed that a few candidates who belonged to employed families had got their status with regard to their family changed to circumvent the direction of the Honourable High Court. i further say that D.P.L.R. vide their letter dated 4.4,2002 enclosed by the petitioners as annexure-3 has stated in respect of a few of such candidates that their status has been changed because they originally belonged to employed families. i further say that it has been observed by the Honourable High Court that employment after payment of compensation can not be claimed as the matter of right. The respondent company has however continued to provide employment to displaced persons for economic rehabilitation of displaced families on compassionate ground. The displaced persons who belong to families where the employment has already been provided do not deserve compassion. Acceptance of such claims were displaced status has been acquired subsequently by change in family/ award/village. Just to gain employment in the company is not in tune with the spirit of the order of the High Court." (Underlining by this Court). Similarly, in the Counter Affidavit of respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, it has been stated at paragraph 6 (iv) as follows : "6(iv) That however, the second list of 60 displaced person (cat. i) which includes the name of petitioners belonging to "Status Change Category" (status change category means the displaced persons who got their names sponsored against the award of their relatives who belonged to villages other than the native village of the displaced persons, as some one was employed by respondent No. 8 from their original award) was also verified by D.P.L.R. office and returned to respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 382 dtd. 6.7.2002. The above list of Cat. i displaced persons were forwarded to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 8 in compliance of the Order dtd. 1.8.2000 of Honble High Court passed in M.J.C.-139/99 (R)." 21. 6.7.2002. The above list of Cat. i displaced persons were forwarded to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 8 in compliance of the Order dtd. 1.8.2000 of Honble High Court passed in M.J.C.-139/99 (R)." 21. in their reply to the counter Affidavit, the petitioners have stated at paragraph-14 that they are admittedly displaced persons whose lands and houses have both been taken and therefore they fall within Category-1 and persons whose lands have only been taken fall within Category-11 However, in paragraph-20, these petitioners have stated that they are the sons/nephew/grand sons of the displaced persons and are not only close relatives but are also blood relations and that they are fully entitled to be employed against the awards issued to the displaced persons. Similarly, at paragraph-4 of their Supplementary Affidavit, these petitioners have stated that they are either direct awarders or are nominees/close relatives of the displaced persons who are dependent upon them. The Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. i to 5 reveals startling facts which are in support of what the respondents have stated in their earlier affidavits. This Supplementary Affidavits begin at running page 141 of this writ petition (relevant at page 147) and it shows in paragraph 12 thereof the following gross anomalies in relation to the 60 names in which the petitioners are included. These anomalies are therefore worth quoting. "12. That 1 state and submit that the following anomalies in regard to 60 persons remained as D.P.L.R. did not give specific reasons to substantiate as to how those 60 names came within the ambit of Honble Courts Order. The following anomalies still exist : i. Even if a member of a displaced family has been employed names from the same family have been included in the list of 60. ii. Even in some cases, the Award (panchat) has also been changed whose name figures at Sr. No. 2 to 24; and iii. Even names of candidates have been changed/substituted for various reasons. Those persons/name appeared in Sr. Nos. 26 to 52 and Sr. No. i." 22. These respondents have further stated that in the first lot of July, 2002. 51 displaced persons from Category-1 were given employment from the list of 207 persons and in June 2003, 42 more Category-1 displaced persons were given offer of appointment. Similarly, in December, 2003, 41 persons were given employment from the same list. No. i." 22. These respondents have further stated that in the first lot of July, 2002. 51 displaced persons from Category-1 were given employment from the list of 207 persons and in June 2003, 42 more Category-1 displaced persons were given offer of appointment. Similarly, in December, 2003, 41 persons were given employment from the same list. it has also been stated that in view of the fact that the petitioners herein are all status changed displaced persons, they cannot as a matter of right, that they must be appointed. They have also said that the Bokaro steel Plant is on the path of "rationalization of man power" and that they therefore introduced schemes like VRS but in spite of these constrains, they have been appointing displaced persons. 23. The words "status changed category" has been explained by Shri 0. Ekka and Shri Shailesh Kumar in their Cause which they have filed pursuant to the Order dated 31.3.2004 by the learned Single Judge. it has been explained in paragraph-17 thereof (running page 202) that ".......... the second list of 60 displaced persons (Cat. i) which includes the name of petitioners belonging to status change category (status changed category means the displaced persons who got their names sponsored against the award of their relatives who belonged to villages other than the native village of the displaced person, as someone was employed by respondent No. 8 from their original family/award) was also verified by D.P.L.R. Office and returned to respondent No, 2 vide Letter No, 382, dated 6.7.2002." 24. Thus, taking into consideration all the aforementioned relevant factors, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the petitioners are all status changed persons/candidates. That being the position, they cannot-repeat cannot, ever say that they should be categorized under Category-I. Moreover, their status takes them totally out of the purview not only of the Scheme but also takes them out of the purview of the High Courts Orders passed earlier. This Court therefore does not find any fault with the Management for which they should be asked to respond to a notice in a writ petition at the instance of the petitioners who, in the opinion of this Court, are only rank outsiders to the issue but. are also persons who are wanting a seal of approval of the High Court over an unconstitutional Act. 25. are also persons who are wanting a seal of approval of the High Court over an unconstitutional Act. 25. This Court takes Judicial notice of the fact that the Bokaro Steel Plant was established for the growth of one of the steel industries of the nation. it was dedicated to the nation and it is a prestigious Steel Plant. it was established in Public Sector Land had to be acquired by the State under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act for which the Government paid huge amounts of compensation to the displaced persons and even went to the extent of providing employment in the manner described in this writ application. Therefore, the Government cannot be obliged to go on keeping alive the claim of every " Tom. Dick and Harry" for appointment nor can the Government or the Authority be called upon to answer a charge that they are playing "ducks and drakes" with the Orders of the High Court because the obligation of the State to ensure that no citizen is deprived of its livelihood cannot be stretched to such an extent that they are obliged to provide employment to every member of each family displaced in consequence of acquisition of land. This Court draws inspiration for the aforementioned proposition from the judgment of the Supreme Court of india passed in the case of Butu Prasad Kumbhar v. SAIL", reported in "1995 Supp. (2) SCC 225 at 229, (para-6). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Rourkella steel Plant and while taking the aforementioned view, have gone to the extent of saying that even if the Government or the Steel Plant would not have offered any employment to any person, it would not have resulted in violation of any fundamental right. On the contrary, their Lordships have said that acceptance of demand for employment would run counter to Article 14 of the Constitution of india. This for is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was depicted to the nation and not to the District of Bokaro only, it is a prestigious Plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. This for is constrained to observe that Bokaro Steel Plant was depicted to the nation and not to the District of Bokaro only, it is a prestigious Plant of the country and repeated claims for appointment based on compassion must now be deprecated thoroughly and completely. Such considerations have deprived the Management of the opportunity to appoint people through open advertisement from across the country and because of Judicial Orders, they have been prevented from making such appointments and even today, claim after claim is being put forth demanding the benefits of displacement notwithstanding they having received substantial amounts of compensation. This must stop now. The Government cannot be said to be at fault and any such claim made before the Management should be frowned upon as bringing illegal pressure on the Government amounting to upsetting constitutional safeguards of Public Sector Undertakings to get and appoint the best of hands through open advertisements from all over the country. Consequently, this Court has no option but to hold that the writ petition is totally devoid of merit and accordingly proceeds to dismiss writ petition (Service) No. 1628 of 2003 filed by the 20 persons claiming appointment. 26. As a consequence of dismissal of the writ petition, we hold that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 264 of 2004 is maintainable and we therefore accordingly, allow the same and set aside the Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 31.3.2004 in WP (S. No. 1628 of 2003 directing the appellants to file show-cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court after holding that the appellants had committed such contempt. 27. in the background of what has been narrated, and findings recorded, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. l,000/-(Rupees One Thousand)upon the writ petitioners to be paid to the management for this frivolous litigation as they have caused unwarranted harassment to the appellant even after being fully conscious of the fact that they could not derive any benefit from the earlier Orders passed by this Court as they are "status-changed" candidates. Even after knowing this fact. they chose, to go on pressing their claims with the hope of compelling the management to accede to their demands and even went to the extent of filing this writ petition this writ petition. Such conduct, viewed from any angle, is far from bonafides. Even after knowing this fact. they chose, to go on pressing their claims with the hope of compelling the management to accede to their demands and even went to the extent of filing this writ petition this writ petition. Such conduct, viewed from any angle, is far from bonafides. On the contrary, it is malafide and cannot receive the nod of this Court. 28. So far as the matter relating to the contempt is concerned, i.e. Contempt Case (Civil) No. 362 of 2004. it is evident that the same was initiated suo motu by the learned Single Judge vide his Order dated 31,3.2004 passed in WP (S) No. 1623 of 2003 by which he inter alia directed the appellants to file show-cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court after holding that the appellants had committed such contempt. in this context it would be necessary to take note of the relevant portion of the Order dated .31.3.2004. Upon perusal of the relevant portion of the said order it is evident, that the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold the respondents guilty on account of an undertaking given before the Court on 19.3.2004 through their counsel Mr. G.M. Mishra to the effect that the Orders and directions of this Court passed earlier shall be complied with. The learned Single Judge therefore noted with displeasure that although opportunity was given to them to file show cause but since they did not doe so, he therefore came to the conclusion that the undertaking given was only to mislead the Court. We do appreciate the anxiety of the learned Single Judge and we note with equal displeasure that the respondents, instead of giving an undertaking, should instead have drawn his Lordships attention to all the facts that we have noticed. To that extent, they certainly acted in a manner that was unbecoming of responsible officers of the Government/undertaking and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in taking the view as aforesaid. However, since we have allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and dismissed the writ petition, we do not wish to proceed any further in this matter save and except to observe that the respondents not have proceeded to give their undertaking without drawing attention of the learned Court to the relevant facts and circumstances that we have taken note of. However, since we have allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and dismissed the writ petition, we do not wish to proceed any further in this matter save and except to observe that the respondents not have proceeded to give their undertaking without drawing attention of the learned Court to the relevant facts and circumstances that we have taken note of. in that view of the matter we close and droop the Contempt proceedings but we warn the respondents to be more careful in future. P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. I fully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother and fully agree with his decision. i wish to add that if such offers of appointment are made while acquiring land for a project due to local conditions, extreme care should be taken to keep it within bounds. This from of recruitment is against the Constitutional scheme of appointment and the rule of equal opportunity. Curing the hearing we were informed that only 6.000 posts on land losers head was available, but already about 15, 000 have been employed under that head. This is certainly impermissible. it is submitted that it was due to external pressures and orders of Court that this happened. This only indicates that Courts should be cautious in making observations and directions and should not lose singt of the scope and limited ambit of the scheme. Nor can the Government or the authorities be compelled to succumb to outside and improper pressures. The figure given also gives a warning that such schemes should not be introduced without appropriate thought and without imposing strict limitations on it. The observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment quoted by my learned brother should always be kept in mind.