Sr. No. 24 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 820/2025 Amit Kumar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 06.05.2025 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 09.12.2024, passed in contempt petition No. 61/268/2023, titled Amit Kumar v. Bhupinder Kumar and others, by virtue of which, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has closed the contempt proceedings and discharged the contempt notices. 2. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this petition. The Tribunal in the first round of litigation before it had disposed of the SWP, which stood transferred to it, by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector in District cadre Kathua, under the ST category on the basis of equitable consideration and pass appropriate orders as per relevant rules. 3. Aggrieved of the non-compliance of judgment dated 22.11.2022, the petitioner has filed contempt petition No. 268/2023 in T.A. No. 3508/2020, before the Tribunal. During the pendency of this petition, the respondents passed a consideration order dated 09.12.2023, wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner averred before the Tribunal that the consideration order is not in compliance with the direction passed by the Tribunal. However, after considering the entire controversy, the Tribunal held that: - “In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no contempt is made out against the respondents and the contempt proceeding is, accordingly, closed and contempt notice stands discharged. The respondents are at liberty to readvertise the unfilled post of Sanitary Inspector in District Cadre, Kathua under the ST category.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly agreed that no appeal is maintainable against the order by which the contempt proceedings are closed. It is only the punishment imposed against which appeal would lie. He submits that he would feel satisfied if this petition is disposed of by only granting the liberty to the petitioner to assail the consideration order. 5. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to assail the consideration order dated 09.12.2023, before the appropriate forum available to him in accordance with law. 6. Dismissed. (Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Judge Jammu: 06.05.2025 Vishal Khajuria