Reena Devi s. Ashissh Kohli CMP No. 28507 of 2025 in COPC No. 649 of 2025 27.11.2025 Present: Mr. Tek Chand , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. While placing on record communication dated 26.11.2025, issued under the signature of Director of School Education, enclosing therewith copy of order dated 19.7.2025, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated, has been rejected, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with. Having perused aforesaid document, which is taken on record vis-à-vis direction contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands complied with. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner attempted to argue that order passed in purported compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, but this court is of the view that since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner and respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner, have rejected the same, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. Correctness of order passed in purported compliance can only be seen in appropriate proceedings, but definitely not in contempt proceedings. In view of the above present application is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated. November 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge