(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the interim order dated 28.2.2011 extended by order dated 7.3.2011. By the said order, it was provided that the select list dated 22.2.2011 should not be given effect to. The interim order passed was continued by order dated 7.3.2011. However, the selected candidates were appointed on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that there is willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 28.2.2011 on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, Cont. Case (C) No. 228 of 2011 Page 1 of 5 Dibrugarh. According to the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid two orders, the sole respondent could not have issued the appointment orders. It is the further plea of the petitioners that even if the appointment orders had been issued, the same ought to have been recalled and / or kept in abeyance in view of the aforesaid interim orders.
(2.) IN the show cause reply submitted by the sole contemner, it has been stated that the order dated 28.2.2011 was received by him on 3.3.2011 but on the other hand, the select list was implemented by issuing appointment orders on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011.
(3.) I have heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel fro the petitioners as well as Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned counsel representing the sole contemner.