CMP No.01/2010. 1. This is an application seeking impleadment of the applicants as party-petitioners. For the reasons detailed in the application, it is allowed. The applicants named in para no.1 of the application are impleaded as party-petitioners. Registry to make necessary correction in the cause title. CMP disposed of. Review Petition No.01/2006 2. The selection process to the posts of Accounts Assistants initiated in the year 1995 has yet to assume finality. Litigating for more than 15 years, the petitioners crave indulgence of this Court for implementation of judgment dated 23.11.2000 passed by this Court in SWP No. 934/95, which has assumed finality after SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed. In terms of selection process initiated by the respondent-Board vide Advertisement Notice No.SSRB-10 of 1991 dated 26.11.1991, the petitioners were allowed to participate along with other eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Accounts Assistants. Having failed to enlist in the select list, various writ petitions came to be filed by the aggrieved candidates before Jammu Wing and Srinagar Wing of this Court against the selection process conducted in the year 1995. It is important to mention herein that vide Advertisement Notice dated 26.11.1991, 529 vacancies for the post of Accounts Assistants were advertised, out of which only 470 candidates were recommended by the SSRB for being appointed to the said posts vide select list dated 10.10.1995. 44 posts had been kept reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category but since one candidate was available for selection, 43 posts were carried forward to be filled up in the subsequent recruitment. Likewise, no recommendation was made for 16 posts belonging to Handicapped Category, because the disability certificates of the candidates belonging to the said category were under process. Out of the 470 selected candidates, 44 candidates did not join. 3. Two writ petitions being SWP Nos. 1602/95 and 606 of 1996 came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for selection to the post of Accounts Assistant against the left out vacancies. This direction was issued on the basis of the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the constitution of the Committee, the cases of the petitioners would be considered for selection and appointment. This direction was issued on the basis of the statements made by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the constitution of the Committee, the cases of the petitioners would be considered for selection and appointment. Resultant effect of this direction was that SSRB vide communication dated 01.01.1998 recommended the selection of 28 candidates against the drop out vacancies in the Open Merit Category. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Board again vide communication dated 31.03.1998 forwarded the select list of three more candidates, making the selection of 31 candidates against 44 left out vacancies in the Open Merit Category. In respect of writ petitions filed before this Wing of the Court, similar direction was issued to consider the selection of the candidates-petitioners for the left over vacancies. This direction was passed in SWP No. 934/95, which was taken as lead petition. 4. A contempt petition no.17-D/98 came to be filed in this Court, which came to be disposed of. Pursuant to the directions passed in the contempt petition, SSRB vide communication dated 22.01.1999 recommended the selection of 13 more candidates against the remaining 13 left out vacancies in the Open Merit Category. 5. It seems that some of the petitioners who could not be selected, filed various contempt petitions in this Court alleging therein that the directions of the Court passed in SWP No.934/95 dated 02.04.1998 were not complied with. While considering contempt petitions, learned Single Judge recalled order dated 02.04.1998 passed in SWP no.934/1995 by passing fresh direction on 23.11.2000. Learned Single Judge held that process and manner adopted by the Board was in contravention of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. In pursuance to that following directions were issued by the learned Single Judge:- (a) That the Board shall accordingly examine the merit of the candidates which was at the time of initial selection and fill the posts accordingly. This exercise would be completed within one month from the date a copy of the judgment is furnished to the Board. (b) That in case, it is not done, the petitioners in SWP No.934/95 and other petitions which came to be decided and regarding which contempt petitions are pending, would be entitled to the appointment and requisite appointment orders be issued in their favour. 7. (b) That in case, it is not done, the petitioners in SWP No.934/95 and other petitions which came to be decided and regarding which contempt petitions are pending, would be entitled to the appointment and requisite appointment orders be issued in their favour. 7. Two types of directions were issued by the learned Single Judge, one was to examine the merit position that was obtained by the petitioners at the time of initial selection and to make the appointment accordingly and other was that if such course is not adopted by the respondents for whatever reasons, option left was to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. 8. As usual, the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid directions, which necessitated filing of contempt petitions before this Court being COA (SW) no.1-C/2003 along with other connected matters, which too came to be disposed of by this Court on 6th September, 2004. After hearing the parties, this Court passed the following orders: (a) That since the record of selection was not available as directed by the Court, as such, it is not possible to prepare the select list as per merit of the candidates at the time of initial selection ; (b) That since the present respondents were not in custody of the record or had control over the documents, they cannot be held guilty for disobedience of the Court order. (c) That appointment of the petitioners had to be made only after recommendations are made by the SSRB as such no appointment could be made by the respondents. 9. While disposing of the contempt petitions along with other connected matters, a direction was issued to the Chief Secretary to refer the matter to the Vigilance Commissioner to hold an inquiry and fix responsibility on the person (s) who may be responsible for destroying the record of selection made pursuant to advertisement dated 16.11.1991. What the co-ordinate Bench has held is that :- (a) Due to non-availability of the record, which is stated to have been misplaced, the judgment could not be complied with; (b) The alleged contemnor could not make appointment of the petitioners as the SSRB had to make the recommendations for their appointment. 10. What the co-ordinate Bench has held is that :- (a) Due to non-availability of the record, which is stated to have been misplaced, the judgment could not be complied with; (b) The alleged contemnor could not make appointment of the petitioners as the SSRB had to make the recommendations for their appointment. 10. Against this order dated 6th September, 2004, SLP came to be preferred by the petitioners which came to be withdrawn on 22.11.2004 at the request of the petitioners and while dismissing the SLP as withdrawn, the apex Court observed as under :- "Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to move the High Court for review and he seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition on that ground. Permission granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn." 11. The direction of the Apex Court is construed by the petitioners as a ground for filing review before this Court. It is under these circumstances, present petition captioned as "Review Petition" has been filed before this Court. 12. The contention of the petitioners is that the direction of the Court to consider the selection of the petitioners on the basis of the merit obtained in the earlier selection has not been complied with, because as per the admission of the respondents, the record of said selection is not available. Supplementary affidavit was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners along with CMP for permitting it to be placed on record, in which notice was issued on 05.02.2002 to the respondents to file objections, which have not been filed. Vide order dated 26.02.2002, Mr. Shukla learned counsel for the respondents stated at bar that he has no objection in case supplementary affidavit is taken on record and accordingly the same was taken on record and respondents were directed to file objections within two weeks. Despite direction of the Court, reply has not been filed. The averments made in the supplementary affidavit remain un-rebutted by the other side. 13. Despite direction of the Court, reply has not been filed. The averments made in the supplementary affidavit remain un-rebutted by the other side. 13. In the supplementary affidavit, the stand of the petitioners is that there were 103 left over vacancies with the respondents, out of which 59 vacancies remained unfilled and 44 candidates did not join, whereas the stand of the respondents is that out of 103 left over vacancies, 44 candidates were selected in pursuance to the direction issued by the Court during the pendency of the contempt petitions out of which 31 candidates were appointed from Kashmir Valley and 13 from Jammu and out of remaining 59 vacancies, 43 vacancies were filled from the scheduled tribe category and 16 from the handicapped category. What is being contended by the respondents is that out of 59 unfilled vacancies, 16 vacancies were to be filled up from handicapped category in the year 1995 and 43 from ST category. 14. Admittedly, no ST candidate was available when the selection process was completed in the year 1995. It is further contended that there was no reservation of Handicapped Category at the time of advertisement and selection. In the year 1995 when selection process was completed, SRO 126 of 1994 containing reservation rules had been promulgated and under Rule 11, there was only preference for the Handicapped Category not reservation. What is being urged by the petitioners is that how and in which manner 59 vacancies have been filed up pursuant to advertisement notice issued in the year 1999. These vacancies could not have been utilized by the respondent-Board in contravention of the direction issued by this Court on 23.11.2000 passed in SWP No 934/95 and confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 14413/2001 vide its order dated 25.11.2002. It is further contended by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit that 59 vacancies which were filled up in pursuance to Advertisement Notice No.01 of 1999, recommendations for appointments were made in July, 2002 and accordingly they were appointed thereafter. Such appointments were made in violation of the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by this Court wherein it was directed that the petitioners be appointed against the left over vacancies. Such appointments were made in violation of the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by this Court wherein it was directed that the petitioners be appointed against the left over vacancies. To substantiate their contention, the petitioners have placed on record a communication dated 01.04.2003 whereby a detailed note was submitted by the Secretary, Service Selection Board to the Financial Commissioner, Finance Department, Civil Sectt., Jammu. In Note-25, it is mentioned that vide letter dated 05.04.1999, the Director Accounts and Treasures intimated that in addition to the posts which were advertised, many more vacancies of Accounts Assistants are available due to death, retirement/ promotion of Accounts Assistants and at present 325 vacancies of Accounts Assistants are available in the Accounts and Treasures Organization. Note-30 clearly mentioned that directions of the Court dated 23.11.2000 is required to be implemented and in case first direction of the Court cannot be implemented due to non-availability of the record then the second alternative with the respondents to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners as directed by the Court vide order dated 23.11.2000. This information was conveyed by the Director Accounts and Treasuries at the time when contempt petition came to be disposed of i.e. on 06.09.2004. 15. The stand of the respondents is: - (a) That no review is permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, as such, present petition is not maintainable; (b) That the petitioners have participated in the selection conducted by the Committee constituted in pursuance to which 44 candidates were selected, most of them were writ petitioners who challenged the selection process conducted in the year 1995. (c) That selection of present petitioners could not be made as record of selection was not available. 16. The stand of respondent no.1-G.D.Wadhawa is that at the time when record was misplaced, he was not the Chairman of the Service Selection Recruitment Board. It is further stated that reply has been filed in condonation application but no reply has been filed to the review petition. 17. It seems that while delay application was being considered by the Court, the directions have been issued seeking enforcement of the orders passed by this Court whereby Chief Secretary was directed to take action against the person who has destroyed the record Various directions have been passed by the Court in this respect in the main petition. 17. It seems that while delay application was being considered by the Court, the directions have been issued seeking enforcement of the orders passed by this Court whereby Chief Secretary was directed to take action against the person who has destroyed the record Various directions have been passed by the Court in this respect in the main petition. The respondents at no point of time objected to passing of such orders in the main petition without first considering the application for condonation of delay. They have by their conduct acquiesced their right to oppose the application for condonation of delay. Even at the time of hearing of the review petition, no objection was taken by the respondents that the application for condonation of delay may be taken first before the matter is heard on merits. Issue of delay, however, would arise only in case it is held to be a review petition and if the Court comes to a different conclusion then this application need not to be decided. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19. First contention raised is that this review petition is not maintainable as no review is permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act. In order to appreciate this controversy, what is required to be seen is the nature of the order against which review is sought by the petitioners. What is implied by the direction was that the judgment could not have been complied with due to non-availability of the selection record. There is no finding that the judgment has been complied with. The order passed in the contempt petition reveals two facets:- (a) That the record relating to selection made in the year 1995 is not traceable, as such, no recommendation could be made as a result of which the petitioners could not be appointed; (b) That the petitioners could not be appointed as recommendations for their appointments have to be made by the SSRB. What is implied by the directions is that the judgment could not be complied with due to non-availability of the selection record. It is no where stated in the order that due to non-availability of the record, the judgment of the court is not capable of being implemented. All that is said is that the selection record was mis-placed, as such, the appointments could not be made. It is no where stated in the order that due to non-availability of the record, the judgment of the court is not capable of being implemented. All that is said is that the selection record was mis-placed, as such, the appointments could not be made. What is gathered from the directions is that due to non-availability of the record, the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with judgment dated 23.11.2000. 20. It is profitable to indicate the stand taken by the respondents as recorded in the judgment under review:- ".....Otherwise too, the stand taken by the Service Selection Board is that the record being old is not traceable and, therefore, it is not possible to prepare the select list as per the merit of the candidates at time of initial selection. It is well settled that in order to constitute the contempt, disobedience must be willful. Disobedience could be willful only if there is some material to indicate that respondents had the custody or control over the documents of selection and they were in a position to prepare the select list, but willfully did not do it. There is no material on record from which it can conclusively be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately or contemptuously had not carried out the direction of the Court in preparing the merit list as per the initial selection. Unless a responsibility is fixed on a person responsible for destroying the said record, no action under law can be taken against the respondents or it can be said that they have deliberately not carried out the direction in publishing the select list and recommending the names of candidates for appointment in order of merit...." What is implied in the direction is inability shown by the respondents which is as under: - "..... The second direction was to the State Government that in case the select list is not prepared or published, the writ petitioners in SWP Nos. 1602/95, 606/96, 934/95 and other connected writ petitions should be appointed. In this regard the stand of Mr. M.A. Lala presently Director General, Accounts and Treasures, is that as per the recruitment rules he could make appointments only after the names had been recommended of the suitable candidates by the Service Selection Board being the selecting authority. 1602/95, 606/96, 934/95 and other connected writ petitions should be appointed. In this regard the stand of Mr. M.A. Lala presently Director General, Accounts and Treasures, is that as per the recruitment rules he could make appointments only after the names had been recommended of the suitable candidates by the Service Selection Board being the selecting authority. In my view he is right in contending so because the names of writ petitioners have not been recommended by the Service Selection Board and in absence of such recommendations, the Director, Accounts and Treasures is not empowered to appoint them. Moreover, there has to be posts against which the appointments could be made. All the 529 vacancies advertised in the year 1991 stand filled up pursuant to the recommendations of Service Selection Board and, therefore, the Director General, Accounts and Treasuries cannot be made responsible for not complying with the direction of this Court passed in SWP No.934/95 dated 23.11.2000..." 21. Finding of the co-ordinate Bench deals with the contention raised by the Director Accounts & Treasuries who has shown his inability to implement the judgment for the reasons stated hereinabove. The Court has observed that there is no willful disobedience shown by the alleged Contemnor as he is unable to implement the judgment of the Court for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. One may not disagree with the observations of the coordinate Bench in holding that there has to be willful disobedience shown by the alleged contemnor, but the fact remains that inability of one of the officers to implement the judgment would not mean that the judgment cannot be implemented. Inability to implement the judgment cannot be a ground for dropping contempt proceedings. The order of coordinate Bench has been wrongly construed as direction to drop the proceedings squarely on the ground that the judgment could not be implemented due to non-availability of the record. 22. The other direction of the Court dated 23.11.2000 that in case merit of the selected candidates in the initial selection is not examined within a period of one month, the petitioners would be entitled to appointment and requisite appointment letters would be issued to them. This direction of the Court has not been considered by the co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 06.09.2004. This direction of the Court has not been considered by the co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 06.09.2004. All that has been stated is that due to non-availability of the selection record, recommendations could not be made and consequently no appointment was made. It is further been stated in the order that there is no vacancy available against which the petitioners can be appointed. This finding has been recorded by the co-ordinate Bench on the basis of the statement made by Mr. M.A.Lala, Director Accounts and Treasuries. The direction for issuing appointment letters in favour of the petitioners was an independent direction and unconnected with the first direction of the order dated 23.11.2000. The respondents had no option but to appoint the petitioners. The statement of the Director Accounts and Treasuries that no vacancy is available was not an issue, which was required to be dealt with by the Contempt court. The direction was not contingent upon availability of the vacancies. Even this statement made by Mr. M.A.Lala, Director Accounts and Treasuries, is contrary to the record. 23. The import of the aforesaid discussion clearly reveals that: (a) The respondents were required to examine the merit of the petitioners drawn on the basis of the initial selection and appointment orders would follow such recommendation ; (b) That in case first direction was not complied with then respondents were to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly, co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 06.09.2004 has not returned any finding on this issue. The said direction as on today has not been complied with. 24. After having said so, it clearly emerges that the 2nd direction in order dated 23.11.2010 to appoint the petitioners has not been dealt with by this Court in its order dated 06.09.2004 and remained unimplemented even as on date. The contempt proceedings could not have been dropped on the ground that the contemnor was unable to implement the judgment, moreso, on account of non-availability of the record. This in my opinion would not render that the contempt proceedings stood concluded. The order of the court is required to be implemented in its letter and spirit. 25. In contempt jurisdiction, the power of the Court is only to ensure implementation of the judgment. The Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. This in my opinion would not render that the contempt proceedings stood concluded. The order of the court is required to be implemented in its letter and spirit. 25. In contempt jurisdiction, the power of the Court is only to ensure implementation of the judgment. The Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. In contempt petition, the Court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a Court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. Even in case where question arose about the impossibility to obey the order, the least it could have been done was to assail correctness of the judgment before the higher forum. The present direction was not a case which was impossible to be implemented. Non-availability of the selection record would not render the judgment incapable of being implemented. The respondents were required to appoint the petitioners as directed by the Court in terms of order dated 23.11.2000. 26. I fortify my view with the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassay PV. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 909 wherein it is held as under:- "If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed contempt court cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. 27. After having said so, the present contempt petition cannot be captioned as Review Petition but in essence petition seeking implementation of the order. As already discussed hereinabove, the coordinate Bench did not deal with the issue regarding implementation of the judgment. 27. After having said so, the present contempt petition cannot be captioned as Review Petition but in essence petition seeking implementation of the order. As already discussed hereinabove, the coordinate Bench did not deal with the issue regarding implementation of the judgment. It only restricted itself on the question as to whether alleged contemnor was capable of implementing the judgment or not and not. The Court had not returned any finding that the present judgment was impossible to be implemented. In such situation, this Court would not be powerless to deal with the issue as according to the petitioners it leads to miscarriage of justice. The court directions cannot be allowed to be circumvented in such situation. 28. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, civil contempt means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of Court or willful breach of undertaking given to a Court. What is contemplated is that there has to be willful disobedience of any order or judgment passed by this Court. 29. The word `willful’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose or with indifference to the natural consequences. A willful act is described as one done intentionally, knowingly or purposely without justifiable excuse as distinguished from the act done carelessly, thoughtlessly and inadvertently. 30. The word `dis-obedience’ means deliberately doing the opposite of what someone in authority has told you to do or deliberately not obeying rules. Analyzing the import of two expressions used in the Contempt of Courts Act, following things emerge:- (a) Doing of an act with an intention in not carrying out the direction as directed by the Court; and (b) Deliberately doing opposite of what someone in authority has told you to do. 31. Applying this in the present case it be seen that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents nos. 3 and 4. I say so on the following reasons: - (a) Ignoring the direction of the Court dated 23.11.2000 in not issuing appointment orders of the petitioners; (b) Non-availability of the selection record been made basis for not implementing the order despite the fact that option was given by the Court to make appointments of the petitioners in case this part of the direction is not complied with. 32. 32. As already stated hereinabove, nothing has been stated by the respondents as to why the appointments of the petitioners could not be made after first part of the direction was not complied with. An effort has been made to show that there are no vacancies available against which the petitioners could be appointed. This statement has been made despite the fact that this Court had directed the respondents to make appointments of the petitioners on the basis of the left over vacancies available after the selection of 1995 was made. This direction was also confirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 25.11.2002 by ordering that the petitioners be appointed against the left over vacancies. According to statements of the respondents, 59 vacancies could not be filled up due to non-availability of the candidates from handicapped and scheduled tribe categories. Admitted position was that 59 vacancies were available against which the petitioners were required to be appointed. Remaining 44 vacancies have been filled up by the selection committee constituted in the year 1998. 33. It is important to mention that direction of the Court was to consider the appointments of the candidates who had filed writ petitions challenging initial selection conducted in the year 1995. It is contended by the petitioners that 31 candidates were appointed from Kashmir Valley. Out of which only 22 were the writ petitioners and remaining were not writ petitioners. The other aspect of the matter is that Director Accounts and Treasuries has admitted that there were 325 vacancies available as is contained in the notes submitted by the Secretary, Service Selection Recruitment Board to the Financial Commissioner, Finance Department vide its communication dated 01.04.2003. The same person namely, M.A.Lala, Director Accounts and Treasuries informed the Court that there are no vacancies against which the petitioners could have been appointed. He has clearly misled the Court by taking a stand that he is incapable to implement the judgment because of non availability of the record and vacancies. 34. Respondent no.3, who is an appointing authority, has not filed any affidavit before this Court. Direction to appoint the petitioners was clear. He has not bothered to submit his reply by explaining his position and has only filed objections to the condonation of delay application. 35. From the aforementioned discussion it clearly emerges that the respondents have willfully defied the directions of the Court dated 23.11.2000. Direction to appoint the petitioners was clear. He has not bothered to submit his reply by explaining his position and has only filed objections to the condonation of delay application. 35. From the aforementioned discussion it clearly emerges that the respondents have willfully defied the directions of the Court dated 23.11.2000. 36. The High Court is a Court of record and while exercising its plenary jurisdiction, has ample powers to remedy the wrong done. The facts of this case clearly reveal that the petitioners have been made to run from pillar to post by respondents 3 and 4 by not complying with the directions of the Court. The injustice done to the petitioners is writ large. They have been made to suffer by the said respondents after they earned judgment in their favour in the year 2000. There is inherent duty to correct any error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court is unquestionably a superior court of plenary jurisdiction and is competent to determine scope of its jurisdiction. The petitioners, who are striving in the Court since 1995, have spent more than 15 years of their lives to get justice. 37. This issue has been addressed only in the context as to whether the High Court has the power to correct its error apparent on the face of record. Even though it has been stated hereinabove that the present petition is not a review but a petition seeking implementation of the judgment passed by this Court. 38. I, accordingly, hold that present petition is not a review petition but a petition seeking implementation of judgment dated 23.11.2000 and the respondents are in perpetual contempt and the judgment of the Court is required to be implemented in its letter and spirit. 39. What was required to be implemented by the respondents as directed by the Court in its judgment dated 23.11.2000 is as under:- (a) That the merit position of the petitioners is to be examined as set out in the initial selection list prepared in the year 1995 and make recommendations in this behalf. (b) That in case first part of the direction is not implemented then the petitioners are required to be appointed against the posts of Accounts Assistant. 40. (b) That in case first part of the direction is not implemented then the petitioners are required to be appointed against the posts of Accounts Assistant. 40. Since selection record was not available as according to the respondents the same has been misplaced, the 2nd part of the direction was required to be implemented by the respondents which commanded them to appoint the petitioners. This part of the directions was required to be implemented by respondent no.3, who is the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, J&K Government. He is required to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners. Non-availability of the selection record cannot deny the right of the petitioners for being appointed in view of the 2nd direction issued by the Court vide its order dated 23.11.2000, which categorically states that the appointments orders are required to be issued in favour of the petitioners. Needless to say that the eligibility of the petitioners regarding age and qualification as contended by the petitioners and contested by the respondents has to be determined on the date when notification for selection was issued. The respondents cannot be permitted to take a plea that there are no vacancies available. The left over vacancies of the selection of 1995 were required to be offered to the petitioners as directed by this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court. Non-availability of the vacancies cannot be a ground to deny the petitioners right of appointment. It will be a clear violation of the directions passed on 23.11.2000. 41. Prima-facie this Court is of the view that rule is required to be issued against the respondents. However, looking to the facts that the civil contempt is remedial in nature and the present incumbent holding the post of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department has taken over recently, it will be appropriate to give opportunity to respondent no.3 to implement order of the Court dated 23.11.2000 in its letter and spirit. 42. The erstwhile, Director Accounts and Treasuries, Mr. M.A.Lala, who was instrumental in defying the orders of the Court is stated to have superannuated. Action proposed against him will be decided at the time of conclusion of the matter. I say so because liberty has been given to respondent no.3 to comply with the judgment dated 23.11.2000 in its letter and spirit. 43. M.A.Lala, who was instrumental in defying the orders of the Court is stated to have superannuated. Action proposed against him will be decided at the time of conclusion of the matter. I say so because liberty has been given to respondent no.3 to comply with the judgment dated 23.11.2000 in its letter and spirit. 43. In view of above, respondent no.3 is directed to appoint the petitioners to the posts of Accounts Assistants in terms of judgment dated 23.11.2000. This process shall be completed by respondent no. 3 within a period of six weeks from today and submit compliance report by or before 15.12.2010. In case needful is not done within the aforesaid period, said respondent shall remain personally present before the Court on 16.12.2010. 44. Respondents 1 and 2 have shown their inability to comply with the directions of the Court on the ground that the record is not available. Since non-availability of the record is not an impediment in not implementing the judgment as stated hereinabove, I do not propose to proceed against respondents 1 and 2. Rules issued against them is hereby discharged. List this case on 16.12.2010. SWP No. 685/2005 and SWP No. 197/2005 are directed to be segregated and listed separately for consideration.