HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case: CPSW No.24/2019 in SWP No.2314/2014 Auqliya Muneer ..... Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Vansh Verma, Advocate Vs Ajit Kumar Sahu and another .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Anishwar Chatterji Koul, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 24.07.2026 1. The instant contempt petition arises out of the order/judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed in SWP No.2314 of 2014, whereby the learned Writ Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- “In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of RET Teacher in Primary School Astanbal, Krawa, District Ramban in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is found eligible for appointment, suitable orders shall be issued in this regard.” 2. Since, the aforesaid order/judgment was not complied within the stipulated period, the instant contempt petition has been preferred in which, the notice was issued on 29.01.2019. 3. A compliance report/statement of facts has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is specifically averred therein that the order/judgment passed by the learned Writ Court stands duly complied with. Along with the statement of Sr. No. 30 2 CPSW No.24/2019 facts, a detailed consideration order dated 09.01.2019 has also been placed on record. 4. A perusal of the consideration order reveals that the claim of the petitioner for engagement as an RET Teacher was duly considered by the competent authority. Upon such consideration, the claim was found to be devoid of any merit and not covered by the applicable policy/orders. The consideration order records that the panels in respect whereof no engagement orders have been issued shall be deemed to have been cancelled/withdrawn ab-initio. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. 5. This Court has perused the consideration order as well as the statement of facts filed by the respondents. The direction issued by the learned Writ Court was confined to consideration of the petitioner’s claim by passing a speaking order. The respondents have considered the claim in terms of the directions and have passed a reasoned order rejecting the same. Thus, the directions contained in the order/judgment of the learned Writ Court stand complied with. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present contempt petition alive, as the directions contained in the order/judgment sought to be enforced stand complied with. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order, if so advised. 7. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed. Rule, if any framed, shall stand discharged. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE JAMMU 24.07.2026 Shammi