Judgment : The petitioners seek to punish the respondents 1 and 2 for committing contempt of Court. Orders were passed in W.P.No.26481 of 2009 on 21-8-2013 directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to consider approving the appointments of petitioners 1 to 3 as Secondary Grade Teachers and petitioner No.4 as Hindi Pundit (Grade-I) in the school of the 5th respondent in the writ petition. Contending that the same had not been complied with, the present contempt case is laid. 2. Counter was filed by the 1st respondent contending that the orders of the Court were complied with. It is claimed that a reasoned order was passed that the request of the petitioners for approving their appointments was not feasible. Submitting that it is tantamount to violating the orders of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for appropriate action against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 3. The learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that once the respondents 1 and 2 applied its mind and passed orders dated 16-9-2013, the present contempt petition does not lie. He placed reliance upon J.S. PARIHAR v. GANPAT DUGGAR1. The Supreme Court observed: "6. ... ... ... It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. ... ... ..." It is thus contended by the learned Government Pleader that once a reasoned order is passed by the 1st respondent on the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.26481 of 2009, orders in the writ petition are deemed to have been complied with, so much so, contempt petition does not lie. 4. The orders of the Court were a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider approving the appointments of the petitioners. 4. The orders of the Court were a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider approving the appointments of the petitioners. There was no direction to approve the appointments of the petitioners but was only a direction to 'consider approving' the same. On the basis of the directions, the 1st respondent passed elaborate orders concluding that the approval cannot be granted. The order may be right or may be wrong. Once a reasoned order is passed after applying the mind, in view of J.S. PARIHAR (supra), the cause of action does not survive. I therefore agree with the finding of the learned Government Pleader that the cause of action has not survived once the 1st respondent passed orders through proceedings Rc.No.Spl/Rjd/2013, dated 16-9-2013. This contempt case consequently is found to be devoid of merits andis accordingly dismissed.