JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, C.J. Re: A.S.T.A.91 of 2013. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the application for delay in preferring the appeal. The delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. The application being A.S.T.A.91 of 2013 is allowed. Re: A.S.T. 156 of 2013. This appeal has been taken up for hearing treating the same as on day’s list. The instant appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 14.2.2013 passed in W. P. C. R. C. 3533 (W) of 2002. As the recognition of the school in question was withdrawn, the matter came to this Court in Writ Petition No.16476 (W) of 2000. The same was decided by this Court on 16.3.2001. Direction was issued to consider the matter afresh for the purpose of recognition of the school in question in the light of the observations made in the order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, and, thereafter, observation had been made as an application for addition of party was filed by one of the teachers for consideration of the case of approval of the existing teaching and non-teaching staff, in case recognition of the school is granted. Thereafter, order dated 9.5.2012 was passed granting approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school. The approval was not granted in respect of other four teaching and one non-teaching staff as their names were not recorded in the report of the District Level Inspection Team, in short “DLIT”. The aforesaid order was questioned in the pending contempt petition. The Single Bench by the impugned order has observed that the non-approval of four teaching and one non-teaching staff is in violation of the order dated 16th March, 2001. Direction has been issued to the District Inspector of Schools to implement the order dated 16th March, 2001. Direction has also been issued to grant approval to five teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to file compliance report within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the order. However, as contempt proceeding was pending, order has been complied with subject to the outcome of the instant appeal. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that exercise made by the Single Bench in the impugned order was totally uncalled for. However, as contempt proceeding was pending, order has been complied with subject to the outcome of the instant appeal. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that exercise made by the Single Bench in the impugned order was totally uncalled for. This Court in the matter of recognition had simply observed that in case recognition is granted, matter of approval of the existing teaching and non-teaching staff will have to be considered. Requisite order had been passed. As the names of the five incumbents were not recorded in the DLIT report, they could not be said to be ‘persons in employment’ at the relevant time. The order could not be said to be in violation of the order passed in the main writ petition. Contempt jurisdiction has been exercised by the respondents. They were not entitled to go on merits of the order. Thus, the impugned order is held to be set aside. Compliance of the order has been made and the right has been reserved subject to the outcome of the instant appeal. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the case of the teachers who had not been approved was similar to those who were approved and compliance of the order can be effectively made in the contempt jurisdiction. Thus, no case is made out to drag the respondent to another proceeding by filing writ petition to assail the order in question when substantial justice has been done by the Single Bench in the matter of approval. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The main writ petition, which was decided in the year 2001, was with respect to recognition. No finding has been recorded by the Single Bench with respect to the matter of approval. An application for addition of party was filed by one of the teachers who had simply prayed that in case recognition is granted, the matter of approval should be considered. This Court has issued the following direction in the writ petition, which was decided in 2001: “In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Director of School Education did no where observe that the School in question does not merit consideration for revival of the recognition. This Court has issued the following direction in the writ petition, which was decided in 2001: “In the facts and circumstances of this case, the Director of School Education did no where observe that the School in question does not merit consideration for revival of the recognition. The said Director, therefore, having been satisfied with the case for revival of recognition of the School sent all necessary papers to the Government of West Bengal, did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of this case in proper perspective upon consideration of all the relevant documents. Therefore, the Secretary School Education Department Govt. of West Bengal acted absolutely illegally and unreasonable in coming to the finding that there are no particulars upon which a definite opinion could be formed as to the revival of recognition of the school in question. I, therefore, set aside the impugned communication dated 31st July, 2000 made by the Secretary School Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal in view of the aforesaid report of the District Level Inspection Team dated 9th May, 1988 and of the implied recognition made by the Director of School Education under his memo dated 11th April, 1997 as also of the recommendation made by the Sabapati, North 24-Paraganas Zila Parishad. I, therefore, direct the Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal to consider the matter afresh for the purpose of revival of recognition of the school in question in the light of the observation made in hereinabove and on the basis of the documents as disclosed in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the said Secretary for the purpose of fresh consideration of the case for revival of recognition of the school in question would be entitled to cause an inspection in the school concerned. Such consideration shall accordingly be made by the said Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of West Bengal afresh expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. The said Secretary after being formed its opinion will refer the matter to the Board of Secondary Education who will then pass appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of law in relation to the revival of recognition of the school of question. This writ petition is accordingly disposed. The said Secretary after being formed its opinion will refer the matter to the Board of Secondary Education who will then pass appropriate orders in terms of the provisions of law in relation to the revival of recognition of the school of question. This writ petition is accordingly disposed. It is further made clear that if the revival of recognition of the school in question is accorded by the Board of Secondary Education, then it will also pass appropriate orders in relation to the existing teaching and non-teaching of the said school. In that view of the matter, no order is necessary and the application filed by one of the alleged organising teacher of the school in question for being added as a party respondent to this writ petition. The same shall accordingly stands disposed of.” In the last paragraph of the order, this Court has dealt with the application filed for addition of party by one of the teachers and simply observed that in case recognition is granted, the respondents will pass appropriate order. As no finding had been recorded that in case DLIT has not found any member working in the school, still the approval has to be granted and report of the DLIT has to be ignored, there is no adjudication on merits that ignoring the report of the DLIT, the approval has to be accorded. As a matter of fact, question of approval was not in issue at all in the aforesaid writ petition. After due consideration of the order passed in the year 2001, the names of five teaching and non-teaching staff of the school were not approved as their names were not mentioned in the report of the DLIT. This was an order on merit and though there was delay but the order passed in the writ petition was duly complied with. It was submitted that during course of contempt proceeding, certain orders were passed. No order can be passed in the contempt proceeding which is not beyond the scope of the main order. Though in contempt one of the objectives is compliance of the order but it is in the method and manner in which it has been ordered. It was submitted that during course of contempt proceeding, certain orders were passed. No order can be passed in the contempt proceeding which is not beyond the scope of the main order. Though in contempt one of the objectives is compliance of the order but it is in the method and manner in which it has been ordered. Since, there was no adjudication of the various issues, simplicitor, there was no adjudication and when the order has been passed, it could not be said to be inappropriate merely on the ground that the approval had not been granted. There was no peremptory direction was issued for approval. Thus, when intelligible classification has been made, it was clearly an appropriate order passed in the facts of the instant case which was in compliance of the order passed in the main writ petition. It is trite law that when order was passed directing to pass appropriate order, merits of such order cannot be gone into the contempt jurisdiction until there is adjudication on certain issues and findings recorded in order, of which contempt has been alleged. It was not such a case. As such, the impugned order passed by the Single Bench directing the respondents to accord approval and the order consequently passed on the basis of the impugned main order, are liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, parties to bear their own costs. It is open to the aggrieved respondent to question the legality of the order passed in the year 2001 in the appropriate proceeding. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the connected application being A.S.T.A.92 of 2013 is also disposed of.