1. Alleging violation of court orders by respondents, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against them. The petition arises in following circumstances: 2. One Nazir Ahmad Wani Assistant Drug Controller, Kashmir was adjusted as Deputy Drug Controller on officiating promotion under Government Order No. 123-HME of 2004 dated 12.2.2004. This was challenged by petitioner on the ground of seniority and better suitability vide Service writ petition No. 383/2004. Simultaneous thereto the said Nazir Ahmad Wani too had filed the writ petition being SWP No. 343 of 2004, seeking continuation on the post of Deputy Drug Controller and charge allowance etc. Both the writ petitions were decided by common judgment passed by a bench of this court (Honble Mr.Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru,) on 6.7.2004, whereunder the officiating appointment of Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani aforesaid was quashed, and the Government asked to fill up the post in accordance with rules with liberty to make stop gap arrangement if required. Thus petitioners writ petition 382/2004 was allowed, whereas that of Nazir Ahmad Wani was dismissed quashing his officiating promotion as Deputy Drug Controller. 3. The said judgment was appealed against by said Nazir Ahmad Wani through Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this court which was disposed of on 3. 8. 2004 with a direction to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller as aforesaid under rules within a period of four months the time fixed according to the statement made by Government counsel in consultations with the administrative department. The judgment of the appellate bench was again sought to be reopened by appellant through the medium of review under petition No. 137 of 2004, which was disposed of by the concerned bench on 2.9.2004. with clarification, that if pending regular appointment some sort of stop gap arrangement would be required, the same be made from amongst eligible persons in accordance with rules governing the matter; and thus ended the chain of litigation. It would be appropriate to mention that all orders passed in the writ petitions, LPA and the review petition were in knowledge of the respondents. 4. It would be appropriate to mention that all orders passed in the writ petitions, LPA and the review petition were in knowledge of the respondents. 4. It is alleged that after conclusion of litigation as aforesaid, the respondent/contemnors were persistently persuaded by the petitioner to comply with orders of the court and revert back the above said Nazir Ahmad Wani to make room for fulfillment of the post of Deputy Drug Controller on regular basis within the stipulated period of four months and if necessary, make stop gap arrangement from amongst eligible officers, pursuant whereto the respondent No. 3 Shri Lokesh Jha, the then Commissioner Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department is stated to have submitted the matter for compliance of court directions more than once- first, at the time of disposal of writ petitions by single bench, secondly, after dismissal of the LPA, and lastly after disposal of the review petition, but despite that nothing happened, because respondent/ contemnors 2 and 1 did not act with due promptitude. They sat over the files for almost a year and thereby created a situation in which the court orders simply withered away by efflux of time. This is alleged to have been done by both of them willfully, to help the above said Nazir Ahmad Wani continue unlawfully on the post of Deputy Drug Controller, and was a conscious act on their part to defeat the process of law. Grievance of the petitioner against respondent No. 3 the then Commissioner Secretary, is,that he should have acted in furtherance of the process of law by implementing the court orders aforesaid, despite in action of the ministers, which he failed to do and thereby contributed to the process of flouting the aforesaid court orders. In their written statement of facts, respondents have maintained that they have already complied with the court directions. 5. Perusal of the court orders above mentioned reveals that the judgment dated 6. 7.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge was concluded in following terms: " In the result SWP No. 343/2004 fails and is dismissed alongwith CMP. Interim direction is vacated. ... .obviously, SWP 382/2004 succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned bearing Government OrderNo. 123 HME of 2004 dated 12.2.2004 is quashed leaving the Government free to fill up the post on regular basis strictly in accordance with the rules. Interim direction is vacated. ... .obviously, SWP 382/2004 succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned bearing Government OrderNo. 123 HME of 2004 dated 12.2.2004 is quashed leaving the Government free to fill up the post on regular basis strictly in accordance with the rules. However, in case appointment on regular basis is going to take considerable time, in such eventuality, the competent authority shall be free to make the appointment of an eligible person on stop gap arrangement or ad hoc but while making such exercise all those officers who do fulfill the requisite eligibility shall be considered uninfluenced by observations made in this judgment." The LPA beingNo. 37/2004 challenging this order was dismissed by the Division Bench (comprising of Honble the Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice R. C. Gandhi, Judge) on 3.8. 2004 with following addition to the Single Bench order: " On the basis of written instructions furnished to him vide letter no. HD-30/ 2000-Drugs-II dated 02.03.2004, Mr. Magrey stated that regular appointment can be made on the post within four months." While considering the prayer for review of aforesaid order, the LPA bench observed that: " The order does not require any clarification, except that the observations should not be construed as limited to consideration of eligibility at the time of regular appointment alone. In other words, while making incharge/ ad hoc appointment on the post also, the eligibility as per the relevant rules may be considered. Thus, the word regular occurring in the first and second paragraphs at page two of the order shall stand deleted." 6. The cumulative effect of all the court orders above quoted is, that, while quashing the officiating promotion ofNazir Ahmad Wani afore said to the post of Deputy Controller, the court left the department free to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller on regular basis under rules governing such appointment within four months from the date of disposal of LPA. In the meantime, however, they were left free to make some stop gap arrangement but with a clear instruction that it would have to be made in strict accordance with the norms, from amongst eligible officers only. In the meantime, however, they were left free to make some stop gap arrangement but with a clear instruction that it would have to be made in strict accordance with the norms, from amongst eligible officers only. In compliance therefore, the actions required to be taken by the administrative department were; first, to divest the above said Nazir Ahmad Wani of the officiating charge of Deputy Drug Controller and place him back into the position from where he was promoted; secondly, initiate process of regular appointment against the post of Deputy Drug Controller with such despatch as would ensure the appointment within four months from the date of disposal of LPA i.e, 3. 8. 2004; and thirdly, if required make stop gap arrangement by an officiating promotion of the deserving, from amongst eligible officers in strict accordance with relevant rules. None of the three steps appear to have initiated by the respondents, much less in the manner in which they were directed by the court. However, compliance of the first component of court direction i.e, cancellation of the officiating promotion of Nazir Ahmad Wani as Deputy Drug Controller has been reported by the respondents in the statement of facts filed after delay of almost seven months, where under the respondents inform that said Nazir Ahmad Wani stands relieved of to additional charge of post of Deputy Drug Controller under Government Order No. 429-HME of 2005 dated 15. 7. 2005, copy whereof has been annexed with the statement. The said statement does, however, not contain anything to suggest the cause for delayed compliance of even this part of the court order, which, as alleged by the petitioner, has been willful and timed to coincide with his retirement, because after his retirement there is no other officer eligible enough to prevent fresh promotion of above said Nazir Ahmad Wani against the post of Deputy Drug Controller. 7. After the statement of facts came on record, counsel for the parties, particularly that of the petitioner, wanted to be heard in support of their respective contentions. 7. After the statement of facts came on record, counsel for the parties, particularly that of the petitioner, wanted to be heard in support of their respective contentions. During course of hearing, the petitioners counsel, besides submitting what is contained in the preceding Para and reiterating the contents of petition, further elucidated them by pointing out certain specific instances to cement his allegations that respondents willfully avoided compliance of court orders, and thereby conducted themselves in a contemptuous manner; while respondents counsel stated that no such allegation is attributable to respondents in given circumstances of the matter, and as such they cannot be held guilty of contempt, particularly because they hold the court in great respect etc. At conclusion of the hearing, the respondents counsel was directed to furnish the relevant official records, which have been received. 8. Before proceeding ahead it will be in the fitness of things to give a brief narrative of the administrative proceedings conducted by respondents 1, 2 and 3, as gatherable from the records submitted by the Government counsel; i. Perusal of the official file No. HD-30/2000-Drugs-lI of the office of the Commissioner Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department bearing subject caption "Representation of Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani, Assistant Drug Controller, Kashmir/LPA 73/2004-Nazir Ahmad Wani" marked as "Urgent", reveals that the file was opened on 27. 2. 2003 while appointment of Nazir Ahmad Wani aforesaid as Assistant Controller Drugs was under consideration, which came to be finally made after withdrawal of the writ petition that he appears to have instituted in connection therewith. Noting in connection with the present matter starts from para 21 of the said file. As per noting from that para to para 27, the decision to inform the LPA bench of this court that regular appointment to the post of Deputy Controller Drugs could be made within four months, has been formulated. Proceedings covering the period after 3. 8. 2004 i. e, after disposal of the LPA, start from para 28, with a note that the department is committed to the court to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller in four months. Proceedings covering the period after 3. 8. 2004 i. e, after disposal of the LPA, start from para 28, with a note that the department is committed to the court to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller in four months. Under para 32 it has been stressed that the Division Bench has neither stayed nor set aside the single bench judgment of 6.7.2004 whereunder the writ petitions aforesaid were disposed of by the single bench and, under para 34, the following action has been proposed: "34... i) to implement single bench judgment by seizing the stop gap officiating arrangement of Nazir Ahmad Wani, Deputy Controller Drugs. (ii) to give the charge of post of Deputy Drug Controller to the senior most person in service in que till post is filled up on regular basis as undertaken by the Honble Court. (iii) to initiate exercise today on war footing basis for filling up the post of Deputy Drug Controller on substantive basis from amongst the eligible through DPC/ PSC and to complete the process well before 30.11.2004 dead line fixed in this behalf." This note is dated 9. 8. 2004 and appears to have been initiated with an honest view of the matter and to propose compliance of the court direction. Thereafter the seniority list of first five persons has come on the note sheet wherein present petitioner figures at serial No. 5, with the officer at serial No. 2 having already retired; while aforesaid Nazir Ahmad Wani does not figure anywhere at all. However, under para 39 of the noting the present petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad Khateeb has been referred to as the " senior most officer eligible to be considered for holding the post of Deputy Controller of Drugs till PSC/ DPC is convened for filling up the post on regular basis". On being asked to opine in the matter, the legal section of the department has not added anything to the aforesaid noting/ observations. The noting thereafter, right upto para 41, is slightly detractive but the matter has been brought back on rails by the notes at paras 44 and 45, whereunder, while stressing the urgency of the matter, approval of note at para 34 above quoted has been sought. The noting thereafter, right upto para 41, is slightly detractive but the matter has been brought back on rails by the notes at paras 44 and 45, whereunder, while stressing the urgency of the matter, approval of note at para 34 above quoted has been sought. The same proposal has prevailed right upto the level of Commissioner/ Secretary who while agreeing with the action proposed at para 34, has under para 50, on 16.8.2004, submitted the file to concerned minister of State i.e, respondent/ contemnor No. 2, who has very comfortably sat over the matter for complete one month and thereafter returned the file only on 16. 9.2004 with the observation: "May wait till outcome of the opinion of the Law Department sought by the Administrative Department in another file". Sd/-Minister of State H and ME. The said observation is typed on a separate slip of paper pasted on the main note sheet as para 52. What lies underneath cannot be found out without expert assistance. However, with that observation the file has gone down through the Commissioner Secretary, and landed right into oblivion, without any further action. ii. Another file, No. 3/Legal/2004-Drugs-II-Contempt 229/2004 and marked "Urgent" Dears the subject caption "Notice titled Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Khateeb Assistant Drug Annalyist" which, according to writing on the cover, purports to be a part file of the file No. of HD-30 above mentioned. Noting on the said file appears to have commenced after petitioners counsel issued a notice to respondents, seeking compliance of court direction aforesaid, with a stipulation that otherwise a motion for contempt of the court would be lodged. Under para 7 of the noting, the file has been directed to be put up alongwith connected records, whereupon the concerned official has reported that connected file was "under submission with the higher authorities for taking action as per the court orders" This note is dated 28.9.2004. Nothing there-afterhas happened till 14. 10.2004, when under paragraph 19 the concerned official, while summing up the whole matter put up following note: " In view of the above decision early action as already proposed in separate file with regard to implementation of court orders is required to be taken so that statement of facts could be filed to avoid adverse orders against the senior functionaries of Government including Honble Minister/ MOS H and ME". This note too has been approved by the Commissioner Secretary i.e, respondent No. 3 on 18.10.2004, but then again a derailing push has been given to the file under the note contained in para 21, which reads as follows: "Keeping in view all the orders passed by Honble Court in writ petitions 282/2004 and 343/2004 andLPA73/ 2004 and writ petition 599/2004 as reproduced from noting para 11 to 21 we may refer the matter to Law Department for opinion in the first instance so that statement of facts would be filed in contempt Petition No. 229/20-04 before 23. 11. 2004". On record there is no mention of writ petition No. 599/2004 in the noting from para 11 to 21. Surprisingly this note too has been approved by the Commissioner/ Secretary and the file marked to Commissioner/ Secretary Law Department, wherefrom the Assistant Legal Remembrancer has returned it with the observation: "the department is advised to contact Shri A. M. Magrey, AAG, immediately to file the statement of facts to the contempt petition filed by the petitioner." With that observation the Law Department returned the file on 27.10.2004, but only to be caught in the curves of red tape for another five months till ultimately the concerned official vide his note dated 7. 2. 2005 at para 42 proposed the following action: "i) to relieve Mr. Nazir Ahmad Wani, Assistant Drug Controller, Srinagar of the Additional Charge of Deputy Controller of Drugs and ask Controller Drugs Food Organization to look after the routine functions of Deputy Controller Drugs Kashmir till the alternative arrangement is made repatriating Mr. Wani to his original post of Assistant Controller of Drugs Srinagar. (ii).... (iii)... (iv) to initiate exercise for filling up the post of Deputy Controller of Drugs, Kashmir on substantive basis by conducting DPC as per decision made by the Honble Division Bench till then stop gap arrangement from eligible candidates under rules can be made." Under para 44, the concerned Additional Secretary to whom the file was submitted has remarked as follows: "Spoken WET para 42(1). Since the officer who had filed the writ petition against Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani and contempt petition against the department has retired, we may seek advise of learned Advocate General about the legal position/ status of the contempt para 42(ii)-(iii)- and (IV) may kindly be approved". Since the officer who had filed the writ petition against Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani and contempt petition against the department has retired, we may seek advise of learned Advocate General about the legal position/ status of the contempt para 42(ii)-(iii)- and (IV) may kindly be approved". Quite conspicuously the officer omitted mention of proposal made at sub para 1 of para 42,and submitted the file to Commissioner/ Secretary, who, while agreeing with reference of the matter to Advocate General, sought re-submission of the file for orders of Minister regarding action proposed, at para 42 (i) vide note contained in para 46 the opinion received from Advocate General has been reflected as follows: " As per judgment of the Honble High Court, the order stands quashed and the same has become none est in the eyes of law and is to be treated as non existent. In case the department will take some time to fill up the post of Deputy Controller of Drugs on substantive basis in the meanwhile, ad hoc interim arrangement from amongst the Assistant Controllers and equivalent on the basis of their eligibility, merit and seniority can be made". This opinion as per note appears to have been furnished on 15. 4. 2005, but again under note contained in para 15, the concerned Additional Secretary has tried to delay action by enquiring whether or not the draft order in terms of action proposed at para 42 was in accordance with the advice of Advocate General. Thereafter, the file has ultimately resurfaced again with the noting contained at para 51 to 55, initiated by the concerned dealing assistant and pushed forward by the official who appears to have written the note at para 21 above quoted, in following terms: "Para 51. Thereafter, the file has ultimately resurfaced again with the noting contained at para 51 to 55, initiated by the concerned dealing assistant and pushed forward by the official who appears to have written the note at para 21 above quoted, in following terms: "Para 51. In view of the position as discussed above none of the officers/ members of the service possess the requisite experience of five years in the feeding cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Controller Drugs Food and Organization, Kashmir, however, post cannot be left unmanned that too in view of the sensitive nature of the basis of the said post, therefore, the vacume is required to be filled up from within department in the larger public interest as such there is no option but to fill up the post of Deputy Drug Controller Food and Organization, Kashmir either on stop gap basis from amongst in- eligibles having better claim i.e, (1) Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani and(2) Smt. Lotikha Khajuria" to fill up the post substan-tively after obtaining necessary relaxation of experience clause from the competent authority which however may take some time . However in the first instance we may rescind Government Order No. 123-HME of 2004 dated 12. 2. 2004 to the extent of Additional charge of Deputy Drug Controller, Kashmir which was given to Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani Assistant Controller Drugs Srinagar to "satiate" the Honble Court verdict as opinioned by Ld. Advocate General to avoid any adverse orders in contempt" (emphasis added). Before continuing further even while ignoring the "satiate" as used in the note, it may be appropriate to notice that by the time things came to this stage, the present petitioner whose writ had been allowed by the court after a strenous legal battle had already retired, and Nazir Ahmad Wani whose promotion to the post of Deputy Controller was previously quashed by this court was again proposed under the aforesaid note for the post on stop gap basis, even after being acknowledged as ineligible, which runs counter to court directions. However, traveling through different desks the file has at some stage reached the table of Deputy Secretary concerned also whose observations at para 60 and 61 of the noting are of quite some interest, and may be quoted: " 60. However, traveling through different desks the file has at some stage reached the table of Deputy Secretary concerned also whose observations at para 60 and 61 of the noting are of quite some interest, and may be quoted: " 60. So far as establishment part of the case is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that I have seen morethan six files moving from one table to another on the subject matter. The statement recorded at note para 52 to 55 does not tally with notings recorded in part files .(emphasis supplied) 61. It may be appropriate in the fitness of things to club all the files/ proposals mooted on the subject which are reportedly under submission and submit comprehensive statement on the basis of seniority, merit and suitability". On this note, the concerned Additional Secretary has directed clubbing of all the files " so that a coherent view can be taken". This was on 12. 5. 2005, but thereafter nothing happened regarding clubbing of files, and instead the same Additional Secretary, vide note at para No. 71 observed that: " We have two officers with substantive status as Assistant Controller who can be given the charges of Deputy Controller of Drugs at Jammu/ Srinagar till these posts are filled up viz Nazir Ahmad Wani and Smt. Lotikha Khajuria". This note appears to have been concurred with and submitted by the Commissioner/ Secretary for approval to the concerned Minister of State i.e, respondent contemnor No. 2, who approved it, and the file moved upward to the concerned Minister i.e. respondent/ contemnor No.l who on 16.6.2005 remarked at para 72 of the noting as under: "1 understand that one more file on the subject was moved by the Administrative Department please link up the file". Thereafter, in a pretence of compliance of Ministers desire, the following notes at paras 73 and 74 have been approved by the Additional Secretary: 73. Observations of Honble Minister at note para 72 and F3 under which it has been desired to put up the file on the subject which was returned to the office. In the said file it has been desired to take action to hold DPC. 74. In this regard it is submitted that the agenda is being prepared by the office for DPC in the DPC file. In the said file it has been desired to take action to hold DPC. 74. In this regard it is submitted that the agenda is being prepared by the office for DPC in the DPC file. The previous file bearing No. HD-25/05/Drugs, alongwith other relevant files as desired is submitted for further orders". It may be recorded that file No.-HD-25/ 05 Drugs mentioned, does not form part of the record submitted by AAG. However, Commissioner/ Secretary submitted the said note for approval to the Minister, whose approval is contained at para 76 of the note sheet. After Ministers approval what was required to be done, was to issue appointment orders of Smt. Lotikha Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani as Deputy Controller of Drugs at Jammu and at Srinagar, but, however, under para 79, the concerned official submitted the following note: "The case was discussed with Principal Secretary H and ME today as discussed we may issue relieving order of Nazir Ahmad Wani and issue order in respect of Smt. Lotikha Khajuria only as Incharge Deputy Controller Drugs and Food at Jammu only. The draft order is also placed on CM for approval. The case of Nazir Ahamad Wani will be processed separately." This note too has been approved by the Commissioner/ Secretary, placing the said Nazir Ahmad Wani on the launching pad for promotion as Deputy Controller Drugs, and thus ended the matter which started with a judicial verdict of highest level quashing his previous promotion as such. Remaining part of the noting from paras 80 onwards pertains to submissions of files to this court. iii. The third file being No. HD-26/2001-Drugs with the subject caption "P/F of Shri R. L.Das", mainly pertains to fulfillment of the post of Deputy Drug Controller. Even though the portions relevant to the matter in hand are para 92 onwards only, yet, the noting upto para 91 also has a marginal relevance, to the extent, that under various notes, for instance at para 46 and 59, the present petitioner has been mentioned to have been one among the senior most officers in the department, at serial No. 4 as Assistant Analyist with one R. L. Das the then Deputy Controller at Serial No. 1. Nazir Ahmad Wani does not figured anywhere among the senior most officers till then. Nazir Ahmad Wani does not figured anywhere among the senior most officers till then. However, contents of para 92 onwards right upto 102 reflect the noting re garding court orders and different stages of proceedings and concludes with the proposal hat the case may be referred to Law Department for their opinion. This proposal appears to have been approved by all above in the row, the Commissioner Secretary and Minister of State, right upto the concerned Minister. After the Ministers approval, the file has gone down and somewhere at the lower rung somebody, apparently the person who initiated the note at 102 has made the following observation: " As per note 106 above, the case is to be referred to the Law Department for their opinion but also as proposed at note 102 ND, the order for the post of Deputy Controller of Drugs was challenged by the petitioner Shri Mushtaq Ahmad Khateeb in SWP No. 382/2004 and decided vide common judgment dated 6. 7.2004. This judgment was amended by the Honble Court which had been submitted in the personal file of Shri Nazir Ahmad Wani, Deputy Controller Drugs, Kashmir. If approved we may club this case file to that file for further action".(emphasis supplied) As a matter of fact the judgment was never amended and this fallacy appears to have been incorporated in the note only with some undesirable design. After that the Additional Secretary on 1.1.2005 remarked "please Speak". Nobody spoke, and the file, alongwith the concerned ministers desire for referring the matter to Law Department, got unceremoniously buried into some dusty corner of the administrative department. It may, however be recalled, that the opinion of Law Department had already been received on 27. 10.2004 as narrated hereinbefore. 9. From perusal of the noting on aforementioned three files those have been made available by Mr. Magrey, learned Additional Advocate General, the tentative impression that one gets, is, that even after final disposal of the matter from this court, the necessary follow up action on the administrative side in accordance with orders passed appears to have been brazenly delayed and derailed by some unscrupulous elements in the administrative department, for as long as one complete year, and with such a clean sleight of hand, as appears to have been perfected into a fine art. As if to crown this whole unholy process, the very person whose officiating appointment as Deputy drug Controller was once quashed by the court, has again been proposed for the same post after tailoring the circumstances to his benefit, and letting the winds of passing times extinguish the efficacy of court orders. The main diversionary tactics apparently employed at bureaucratic level by the concerned Addl. Secretary and two other officials who have written the notes at paras 21 and 25in file No. 3/ Legal/2004-Drugs-lI-Contempt 229/2004 and para 102 in the file No. HD-26/2001-Drugs, has been, reference of the matter for legal opinion either to Advocate General or the State Law Department or its derailment by raising irrelevant queries about the seniority, posting etc. of the eligible officers including the present petitioner, and Nazir Ahmad Wani aforesaid, which unfortunately appears to have been endorsed at the ministerial level also. One fails to understand as to where was the room for seeking opinion from either the Advocate General or Law Department, for implementation of the court judgment, which had attained finality after confirmation by the division Bench as clarified by the orders passed in review petition without any further challenge from any side; and, what after all was the scope of such opinion, even if the same might have been against in court findings. Thankfully the Advocate General and Department of Law have, by and large, advised implementation of the court orders, but without any result. The simple question that requires to be answered, is, when an order of single judge, passed after due hearing of the parties, is confirmed by the larger bench, and the State or its functionaries do not choose to challenge the same, what comes, in between the order and its implementation? Answers shall have to be sought from the concerned functionaries of the administrative department; alongwith the Honble Minister at whose level the whole process precipitated into the ultimate administrative decision, and the minister of the State, who sat over the file for a long time and thereafter returned it with the simple observation that matter has already been referred to Law Department for their opinion, and later without good opinion approved the proposals designed to defeat the court orders. While feeling disappointed on the official conduct at certain levels as mentioned above, one gets some satisfaction from the conduct of some other officers concerned with the matter, i.e, the concerned Under Secretary who has quite honestly and faithfully initiated the positive notes at para 34 in file No. HD-30/2000-Drugs-II, as mentioned above and stressed the need of complying the court orders; and the Deputy secretary, who, under the notes at Paras 60 and 61 of file quoted in para 9,herein-before, has, with some conviction, but helplessly wondered as to why six files on the same subject have been moving from table to table, with considerable contradictions on facts; and suggested clubbing of all for composite disposal. However, the honest efforts of these officers have gone waste because of the undesirable conduct of authorities above and below them, both at bureaucratic and ministerial level. Lest it may be misunderstood otherwise, I may hasten to add that whatever has been said hereinabove, only reflects the tentative impressions as gathered from records and circumstances attending the subject; and not the final opinion of this court. 10. Considered within its individual frame, the matter in hand appears to be limited to the undesirable continuation of above saidNazir Ahmad Wani in the post of Deputy Controller of Drugs, and diminishing of petitioners possible chances of promotion against the said post, coupled with non- compliance of the court directions to the contrary. Viewed thus, it appears to be limited in scope even with all its seriousness. But when seen and assessed in the systemic sense, it appears to surpass the bounds of astray example, and assumes the contours of a full fledged subject, involving the credibility of civil administration on one hand and the efficacy of justice delivery system on the other. If conduct of such civil servants- though few in number- as the ones mentioned hereinabove, is any indication of goings on in official corridors, then the whole administrative functioning appears to be loosing the flavour of fairness that ordinarily should be its introductory feature. In broader sense therefore the matter involves the question of systemic erosion and that is how it assumes an extraordinary significance, and deserves to be dealtwith accordingly. 11. In broader sense therefore the matter involves the question of systemic erosion and that is how it assumes an extraordinary significance, and deserves to be dealtwith accordingly. 11. What is particularly disturbing is that even at the level of ministers- the highest level of executive decision making-the bad designs of unscrupulous officers working under them should get reinforced, whether by commission or omission. Ministers, in a democratic set up, are the chosen rulers of people, and for rule of law to prevail in the society, they have to be the first ones to obey the law, and foremost in respecting its process. That can only be so if they visibly acknowledge and abide by the systemic checks, and appreciate that the enormous executive power they enjoy, is not an unbridled personal might, but a sacred constitutional authority, that has to be exercised in accordance with the constitutional and legal norms, for which they are under oath. Sooner they appreciate that, better it would be for the society, the State, and its subjects. Officers of the Government too, like the ones aforementioned, would be well advised to realize that their vast executive power is a public trust and an obligation to act impartially, fairly, and judiciously, is integral to the very exercise of that power. 12. The conduct of Nazir Ahmad Wani aforementioned too, whose appointment as officiating Deputy Controller Drugs, Kashmir was quashed by the court- the quashment confirmed by appellate bench, cant be ignored even though he is not in the array of respondents herein. In legal sense, ordinarily, the quashment of his officiating appointment meant its total annulment, and his overthrowing therefrom through a court decision. Inspite of that, he not only stick to the chair but also managed continuation thereupon, against the force of judgments to the contrary. This could certainly not have been possible without the suspicious patronage of some higher ups-those, who incidentally were charged with the very responsibility of implementing court orders. There is nothing on record, however, to suggest as to how, after all, he continued as Deputy Controller even after quashment of his posting; which plainly means that he was there without any legal sanction whatsoever He owes as explanation to the court for his apparently unauthorized continuation on the post of Deputy Controller even after quashment of his promotion thereto. The fact that he has again been proposed for promotion to the post of Deputy Controller Drugs, despite his declared ineligibility, as acknowledged under the relevant portion of noting as quoted hereinabove is really astonishing; for the simple reason of its being in direct contravention of the court verdict. As a matter of fact, the whole humbug appears to have been organized with a considerable amount of cleverness, and significantly, at a time when petitioner, who alone, apparently, had a better title to such appointment has already retired, and the claim that Nazir Ahmad Wani was the only person deserving consideration for such officiating promotion could be projected as tenable though after the temporary cancellation of his promotion, and compliance of court orders claimed, as has been done in the written statement of facts. This sort of "compliance", apparently calculated to defeat the court order in its own terms, is quite obnoxious, least expected of highly placed responsible officers; and simply tantamounts to ridiculing the process of law, by violating it under pretence of compliance. If the concerned authorities could only chanalize their talents constructively, continuously , rather then tainting it with such perversions as noticeable in the instant case, the quality and texture of governance could perhaps be pleasantly different. However, the big question that crops up from what is sated above, is that if orders of the court - the final ones, which have attained finality even on appeals, and not challenged thereafter, can be jumped over in the manner in which they appear to have been in the instant case, then what is the fun of judicial functioning? Why then should courts exist, hold sittings, hear cases, and pass judgments; if ultimately, under the garb of "respect for courts" as pleaded, their orders are only to be respected in their breach? The Courts can simply not afford to live with such questions helplessly. 13. Before coming to conclude the order, I am tempted to make a few observations as follows: a) First, like this petition, scores of other applications for initiation of contempt proceedings are lying in this court against various functionaries of the Government at different levels, and taken together, they involve almost all senior officers of the civil service. 13. Before coming to conclude the order, I am tempted to make a few observations as follows: a) First, like this petition, scores of other applications for initiation of contempt proceedings are lying in this court against various functionaries of the Government at different levels, and taken together, they involve almost all senior officers of the civil service. All of these petitions may ultimately not been found tenable but their pendency in this court should be a matter of concern because besides indicating the volume of public dissatisfaction regarding compliance of court orders by civil servants, they also reflect an element of administrative indifference towards the enormous consumption of official time and energy etc. that the respondents spend in contesting these matters. For that reason, it would perhaps be desirable that Government considers the possibility of constituting an effective mechanism, like a committee comprising of, say, Commissioner/ Secretary General Administration Department, Commissioner/Secretary Department of Law, Advocate General and any other officials/ officers, to monitor and assure compliance of binding court orders. This would yield a two pronged benefit, first, that Government would know the number and nature of court orders required to be complied with and take necessary follow up steps to avoid embarrassment to its officers; and secondly, that they could know, and inform the concerned court, about any genuine difficulty coming their way in lawful compliance of any court order, so that the question of implementing such orders could be suitably addressed. That way all the official time and energy spent by officers of the Government, in defending themselves could be saved for the official work which primarily deserves that. b) Secondly, while disposing of the review petition instituted by Nazir Ahmad Wani aforesaid where under he sought review of the Division Bench judgment, the Bench observed that for making stop gap arrangements too the standard of eligibility required under rules shall be applicable. By necessary implication it means that even for stop gap arrangement, the prescribed criterion cannot be jumped over in derogation of the norms otherwise governing appointments/ promotions. Thus, a stop gap arrangement, in whatever form undertaken, may slightly side tracks the prescribed procedure temporarily due to some administrative exigency, but it can not in any way dilute the eligibility for appointment or promotion to the posts sought to be filled up as such. Thus, a stop gap arrangement, in whatever form undertaken, may slightly side tracks the prescribed procedure temporarily due to some administrative exigency, but it can not in any way dilute the eligibility for appointment or promotion to the posts sought to be filled up as such. The noting on the official files as referred above, however suggests, that observations of Division bench in this behalf have not been well received by the administrative department, even while it should have guided the proceedings, not only in the instant case, but on the subject in general. 14. In light of what has been said above the only thing that remains is as to what course of action may be adopted that befits the texture of what has proceeded in foregoing pages. Guidance on that aspect can be had from a judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in Judgment Today as JT 2005(6) SC 149 whereunder their Lordships while considering a contempt matter, though in a slightly different context were pleased to observe in para 12 of the judgment as under: "... The willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court amounts to "civil contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act..." Proceeding further, their Lordships also quoted from Halsburys Laws of England para 482 as follows: "An undertaking given to the court in pending proceedings by a person or corporation (or by a government department or Minister of the Crown acting in his official capacity) on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action or inaction, has the same force as an injunction made by the court and a breach of the undertaking is misconduct amounting to contempt." Thereafter, while holding the respondent guilty of contempt their Lordships were pleased to observe in para 16 of the judgment as under: "...We are conscious of the fact that the power to punish for contempt must always be exercised consciously, wisely and with circumspection. At the same time, the Court should act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a grossly contemptuous act of a party. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society..." 15. In the given circumstances of this case as cataloged above, this court too should not take a lethargic view of the matter, and accordingly, the order is concluded with the following directions: i) Notices in their personal names be issued to respondent/ contemnor No. 1,2 and 3 for filing personal affidavits to explain their conduct in the matter as aforesaid, returnable within four weeks and show cause as to why they may not be proceeded against for contempt of this court. ii) Notice be issued to Commissioner/ Secretary GAD returnable within similar period for identifying the Commissioner/ Secretary who took over after respondent No.3, the Additional Secretary as mentioned in the order and the officers/ officials who have written the notes at paras 21 and 25 of File No. 3/Legal/2004-Drugs-II-Contempt 229/2004 and para 102 of File No. HD-26/2001 so that they are properly brought to account for their conduct as indicated above. iii) Notice be issued to aforesaid Nazir Ahmad Wani returnable within four weeks to file an affidavit explaining his conduct in light of the above contained observations. iv) Copies of this order be communicated to the concerned alongwith notices to be issued as aforesaid. v) The three official files submitted by the Id. AAG Mr. A. M. Magrey, be alongwith a copy of this judgment returned to him after retaining photocopies of the note sheets for court file. Mr. Magrey shall in due course apprise the court whether any other file pertaining to the subject exists in the administrative department that has not been furnished to the court, alongwith reasons therefore, if any. vi) For conveying the impressions and observations made, a copy of this order be furnished to learned Advocate General and Chief Secretary of the State. List immediately after four weeks.