Facts: The respondents were appointed as lecturers in a private college in 1993. Following a 2000 Government policy ending financial assistance to non-aided colleges, the respondents sought the creation of posts and payment of salaries from the State exchequer. Over the course of 16 years, the High Court repeatedly quashed the State's rejection orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Each time, the authorities reiterated their refusal based on the policy ban. This "episodic" litigation led to a contempt petition where the High Court directed the framing of charges against the appellant (Principal Secretary, Higher Education) despite a fresh, detailed rejection order passed by the government on 09.05.2025 remaining unchallenged.Procedural Posture: The appellant, an alleged contemnor, challenged the interim order of the High Court that directed the listing of the contempt petition for framing of charges. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in proceeding with contempt charges when the underlying rights remained unclarified and a fresh, substantive order by the government had not been formally challenged via a writ petition.Holding: No. The Supreme Court stayed the framing of charges and directed a course correction to resolve the substantive legal dispute rather than continuing inconclusive contempt proceedings.Reasoning: The Court observed that "consider jurisprudence"—where courts repeatedly remand matters for reconsideration without deciding on the actual existence of a right—is counterproductive and harms the judicial system. It noted that contempt jurisdiction was being misused for quick relief against appealable orders. The Court held that if a case deserves relief, the court must grant it "unflinchingly" rather than postponing it. Since the High Court's previous orders lacked a clear and categorical direction on the violation of a right, and the government's latest rejection order was still in force, the proper course was for the respondents to challenge that order through a fresh writ petition rather than seeking contempt charges.