The Tribunal, in the instant case, has issued notices and has called upon the opposite party in the Contempt Application for appearing before it in order to frame charges and then proceed in the matter. In our opinion, this stage cannot be a stage for entertaining a writ petition on the ground as if the Contempt Application was not maintainable and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same. To our mind, it appears that the Tribunal on a perusal of the order dated 18th November, 2009 as well as the order dated 6th December, 2006 was of the prima facie opinion that disobedience has been committed. The Contempt Application was filed against three named officials. Unfortunately the said officials, who were summoned in person have not filed the present writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed in the name of the designation of the officials and not in their own personal capacity. The writ petition, therefore, as framed on behalf of the personnel in their official capacity would not be maintainable when the notices have been issued in person to the then officials who were being complained of having disobeyed the orders.The issue of finality in relation to the dispute of the vacancy and availability of the post of Lab Assistant was an issue which was decided in paragraph no. 5 of the judgment dated 6th December, 2006 as extracted hereinabove. Even if, it is presumed that the operative part of the said judgment in paragraph no. 8 allowed the authority to proceed if the vacancy was available then too, an order came to be passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners on 27th March, 2008. The finding recorded in paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 6th December, 2006 was therefore, upheld and not set aside. Apart from this, an attempt to get the judgment of the Tribunal reviewed also failed and the review application was dismissed on 10th December, 2007. The respondent no. 1 filed a Contempt Application No. 92 of 2007 and the order passed therein and extracted hereinabove directed the authority to ensure compliance within three months. Thereafter also the petitioner-General Manager passed an order on 25th April, 2008 again rejecting the claim of the respondent no. 1 which was set aside in the execution application decided on 18th November, 2009. The said order in the execution application was never challenged by the petitioners and has attained finality. The petitioner no. 1 then proceeded to pass an order on 24th February, 2010 which has given rise to the action for contempt. The Contempt Application would therefore, be maintainable if a disobedience is being alleged in respect of an order which has attained finality. The defence of the petitioners on this issue can be examined only after the charges are framed and their defence is considered in Submit