complied with, a contempt petition was filed before this Court by the first respondent Association in which this Court, passed an order dated 12.10.2017 agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of the official respondents that there is no qualified candidate available to fill up the post of Director of Public Library. Consequently, this Court permitted the official respondents to resort to filling up the post of Director of Public Library through direct recruitment by fixing an outer time limit. In such circumstances, when the petitioner was not at all a party to either the writ petition No. 1952 of 2017 or the consequent Contempt Petition No. 1496 of 2017, this Court, at the instance of the petitioner, is not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to file an appeal as against the order dated 12.10.2017 passed in Contempt Petition No. 1496 of 2017. For the purpose of filing a Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner cannot be construed as an aggrieved person and consequently, he has no locus standi to question or challenge the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No. 1496 of 2017. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any act of the official respondents, his remedy is elsewhere and he could not be permitted to file an appeal as against the order dated 12.10.2017 passed in Contempt Petition No. 1496 of 2017. The scope of the Contempt Petition is to examine as to whether the order or direction issued by this Court has been complied with or not by the official respondents. In fact, in the order dated 12.10.2017 in Contempt Petition No. 1496 of 2017, this Court accepted the reasons assigned by the official respondents for not filling up the post of Director of Public Library and directed them to fill up the post of Director of Public Library by resorting to the third method of recruitment namely by direct recruitment. While so, at the instance of the petitioner, we are not inclined to grant leave to file http://www.judis.nic.in
