(1.) The learned single judge of this Court in complainants WP No.104180/2021 had rendered an order dtd. 19/11/2021, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure-A. The operative portion of the same reads as under:
(2.) The complaint is founded on the allegation that the direction contained in the above order has not been complied with and that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for non compliance. After service of notice, the accused persons having entered appearance through the learned AAG, vehemently opposes the petition contending that the records concerning the employment of complainant in all institutions in question have been extrapolated and therefore the saving clause in the direction comes to the rescue of accused persons.
(3.) She further contends that there is no willful disobedience of the direction of learned Single Judge at all. In support of her contention she places on record an endorsement dtd. 9/12/2021. The said endorsement contains elaborate reasons as to why the direction of the learned Single Judge does not avail to the benefit of the complainants, more particularly because of a saving clause grafted in the very order. We are broadly in agreement with this submission of learned AAG.