JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J ( Oral). Since in both the contempt applications, question of facts and law are identical, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, both the applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The only grievance of the applicants is that although Public Service Commission has already recommended the names of the applicants to the State Government for appointment in compliance of judgment dated 26.08.2013 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 1456 of 2012 and other connected petitions, however, State Government is not issuing appointment letters to the applicants. 3. This is no more res integra that Contempt Court has no jurisdiction either to add or delete any word or sentence(s) in the judgment, non compliance whereof is reported in the contempt petition. The duty of the Contempt Court is to see as to whether judgment, in question, has been complied with or is not being complied with deliberately. 4. Since Public Service Commission has already recommended the names of the applicants for appointment, therefore, judgment dated 26.08.2013 stood complied with. The question as to whether appointment orders should be issued in favour of the applicants by the State Government is a separate issue. There was no direction in the judgment dated 26.08.2013 to the State Government to accept the recommendations of the Public Service Commission and to issue appointment letters to the applicants. Applicants, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, for issuing appointment letter as per recommendations of the Public Service Commission. 5. In view of the above, contempt notices stand discharged. Both the contempt applications stand disposed of.