Judgment :- 1. Writ jurisdiction is more and more abused by undeserving persons like the petitioner and to compound the misuse, a subsequent contempt petition has also been filed invoking our contempt jurisdiction to threaten or blackmail, the respondent Government officials who also, many a times take umbrage under the Court order and extend favours to persons who may not be entitled for such favours but are beneficiaries because of a series of court orders. 2. The instant complaint is one of such matter. The complainant was the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 62353/2009 seeking for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the third respondent in the writ petition, namely Deputy Director of Public Instructions, UttaraKannada. 3. The writ petitioner has contended that he has much more qualification than the qualification prescribed for the post of an Assistant Teacher. Writ petitioner has the qualification of Bachelors’ Degree in Arts and Bachelors’ Degree in Education. It was claimed that the petitioner has been working in the post of Assistant Teacher for quite a number of years in an aided privately managed school, namely Sri Parijnashram Swamiji Higher Primary School, Vanashreenagar, Dandeli, Tq. Haliyal, U.K. However it appears that the appointment of the writ petitioner had not been approved. On the other hand, a representation made by the writ petitioner to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary school of the 5th respondent management, was rejected. It is against the order of rejection the complainant had approached this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari. 4. The Learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the writ petitioner having more qualification than what was prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school namely T.C.H. and following the decision of this Court in W.P.NO. 4. The Learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the writ petitioner having more qualification than what was prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school namely T.C.H. and following the decision of this Court in W.P.NO. 30385/2008 wherein it was opined that persons like writ petitioner, who have better qualification, definitely elicit approval of their appointment from the concerned authorities, and the learned Single Judge having found that in a series of writ petitions, orders akin to the order impugned in the present writ petition, were quashed and the authorities were directed to reconsider representations of such persons for approval of appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers thought it proper to issue directions to the authorities, to consider the case of the writ petitioner for approval of his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, particularly relying upon the instances of Government having approved such appointment by relaxing the prescribed qualification being of the view that a higher qualification cannot constitute a disqualification. The learned Sngle Judge while setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2009, issued a mandamus itself to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner and the rule was made absolute. 5. It is thereafter the present contempt petition was filed by the writ petitioner, very promptly, to be precise on the very day when the writ petitioner obtained certified copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Notices had been issued to the respondents and on 09.03.2010 and on 08.04.2010 when the matter had come up for orders at the request of learned Additional Government Advocate the matter was ordered to be listed today. 7. We have heard Sri G.R. Turumari, learned counsel for complainant and Sri K.B. Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 8. Sri Turumari, submits that the respondents had taken time to comply with the directions but without any positive action and therefore the matter warrants commensurate action against them in contempt jurisdiction. 9. Sri K.B. Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate without adverting to merits of the complaint and without any possible explanation or answer to the complaint which the respondents may have, would only submit that the respondent-State has preferred a writ appeal in No. 6131/10 against the order made in W.P. No. 62353/09, therefore this matter should wait. 10. 9. Sri K.B. Adhyapak, learned Additional Government Advocate without adverting to merits of the complaint and without any possible explanation or answer to the complaint which the respondents may have, would only submit that the respondent-State has preferred a writ appeal in No. 6131/10 against the order made in W.P. No. 62353/09, therefore this matter should wait. 10. Mere filing of a writ appeal is not a good answer in contempt jurisdiction. There is neither any justification nor need to adjourn the contempt proceedings only because learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the State has preferred an appeal. 11. Unless there is a positive order staying the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge the position does not change just because a writ appeal is filed. 12. Be that as it may, it is our experience in such matters that too particularly in writ jurisdiction, undeserving persons come up with all sorts of petitions and manage to obtain orders possible or impossible from this Court and armed with such orders they invoke our contempt jurisdiction to threaten or even blackmail the respondents. Some amongst the irresponsible, ignorant or many a time even colluding bureaucrats who run this Country very willingly agree to abide by such orders whether such writ petitioner/complainants were entitled to such a relief or otherwise in law. 13. It is our experience that not only the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been misused or abused by persons who may or may not be eligible, who may qualify or otherwise to seek such reliefs. The orders passed by this Court without going into merits of the case and merely indicating that it is passed by following an earlier order is used by the petitioners to promptly complain that the order is not complied by the respondents, and our contempt jurisdiction is also invoked. 14. As it is respondent accused persons have a weak defence in contempt petitions particularly when the Damocles’ ‘SWORD’ punishment is hanging over their heads and meekly submit to carryout all directions issued in the orders passed in writ petitions irrespective of whether the order could have been passed and many a times allowing such orders to come into existence, by default by either not appearing at all or even when requested by Government Lawyers by not putting up any defence but allowing the matter to succeed only due to default. Ultimately in a situation like this the victim is the Rule of Law and many other deserving persons who may be left behind keep on languishing and undeserving persons when manage such orders, the respondent/accused persons in the name of compliance with court orders and to abide by the orders of the Court agree to implement the court orders only to escape the consequence in the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 15. Grant in aid is not a statutory right. Writ of Mandamus can never be issued to enforce such right. We are quite aware that we are not sitting in appeal over the order passed by the learned Single Judge and such is not the contempt jurisdiction. Nevertheless when the contempt jurisdiction is invoked by the writ petitioner as complainant it is our duty to know for what purpose our contempt jurisdiction is invoked. If the complainant is not a deserving person and not a bonafide complaint and invoking our contempt jurisdiction we would rather decline to exercise our jurisdiction. 16. In the instant case we find the net result of the order, and giving effect to the order in the manner indicated therein may result in injustice and denial of justice to other really qualified persons. They may be even above the writ petitioner in the interse seniority in their institutions as it is to well known that the posts in aided institutions admitted to grant in aid are limited. Therefore the persons who can be admitted to grant in aid, again depends upon the interse seniority within the institution and subject to having commensurate qualification. 17. These are all known facts, yet things are not forthcoming on behalf of the respondents either in answer to the writ petition or in the contempt petition. In such a scenario we are rather hesitant to exercise our contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly the contempt proceedings are dropped.