SANJAY Misra, J. - (1.) Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. This contempt petition has been filed alleging that the opposite parties have flouted the judgement dated 14. 11. 2006 passed in writ petition No. 29608 of 2000 Vivek Khare Vs State of U. P. and others. The order dated 14. 11. 2000 indicates that both the parties before the Writ Court jointly agreed that the controversy involved therein is squarely covered by two decisions of the court in writ petition No. 21569 of 2000 Ghanshayam Dass Verma and others Vs State of U. P. and others decided on 29. 4. 2002 and writ petition No. 17326 of 1999 Alok Kumar Vs State of U. P. and others decided on 25. 4. 2000. In view of the joint agreement between the parties the writ petition of the petitioner was finally allowed in terms of the judgement of the writ petitions already decided and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group-C posts (outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules 1998 and issue appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with law. The decision in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma is available on record of this contempt petition. The writ petition of Ghanshyam Dass Verma was filed against an order dated 3. 4. 1999 passed by the Commissioner whereby he had cancelled the selection held in the year 1998 after the stage of written examination and prior to holding of the interview. In Ghanshyam Dass Verma's case the Writ Court quashed the order of the Commissioner and gave liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry or to take a decision with regard to the interview conducted for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. It was also provided that since the order of the Commissioner had been quashed whereby the interview was cancelled the respondents may proceed with in accordance with the Rules of 1998. In the meantime the petitioner had filed his writ petition and was granted an order in view of the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma. According to the respondents an enquiry was conducted and a Government Order dated 9. 5. 2007 was issued whereby it was provided that when fresh selection is advertised the successful candidates of the 1998 selection would be considered by giving them age relaxation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent to the order passed in Ghanshyam Dass Verma's case as also in the writ petition of the petitioner the opposite parties had issued advertisement in the year 2005 and in the year 2007 however they did not give any benefit to the petitioners in pursuance of the judgement of the court in Ghanshyam Dass Verma's case. He states that it is only when they had issued fresh advertisement on 5. 11. 2008 that they have provided the benefit of the Government Order dated 9. 5. 2007 in Clause V of the said advertisement which relates to the successful candidates of the selection held in pursuance of the 1998 advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opposite parties are required to be punished for having committed contempt in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner and secondly for not complying with the directions of the Writ Court. In the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma when they issued the advertisement in the year 2005 and secondly when they issued the advertisement in the year 2007 they have disobeyed the directions of the Writ Court in the writ petition of the petitioner as well as the directions in Ghanshyam Dass Verma's case. In so far as the present advertisement dated 5. 11. 2007 is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is too late in the day to give benefit to the petitioner when the directions of the Writ Court have already been flouted and the respondents are required to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record the directions in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma is quoted here under- It is open to the State Government to consider the complaint if any or to take any appropriate action in accordance with law pertaining to selection/interview of the Gram Panchayat Adhikari. This order will not preclude the State Government to hold an enquiry or to take decision with regard to interview conducted for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari. The order of the Commissioner dated 3. 4. 2000 is being quashed only on the ground that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the said order. In view of quashing of the order dated 3. 4. 2000 of the Commissioner cancelling the interview, the respondents may proceed in accordance with the U. P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group "c" Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules 1998. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. In light of the aforesaid direction the writ petition of the petitioner was also allowed on 14. 11. 2006. Consequently in the writ petition of the petitioner the court required the respondent to proceed in accordance with 1998 Rules and issue appointment letter to the petitioner in accordance with law. The said two directions clearly indicate that the stage of interview of the 1998 selection which had been jeopardised because of the order of the Commissioner was revived by the High Court by quashing the order dated 3. 4. 1999 passed by the Commissioner whereby he had cancelled the interview and the respondents were given direction to proceed in accordance with 1998 Rules. Consequently the stage of interview which could not be conducted in the selection of 1998 was required to be resumed and the successful candidates of the 1998 selection were entitled to be considered in the interview contemplated under the advertisement as also under the 1998 Rules. Such was the very same order in the writ petition of the petitioner and by reading the said order to mean that without an interview and without following the procedure prescribed in the rules the appointment letter was to be issued to the petitioner cannot be accepted. Clearly the Writ Court in the writ petition of the petitioner directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with the 1998 Rules and in view of the judgement in Ghanshyam Dass Verma's case. The said order was clearly meant for holding the interview of the candidates who were declared successful in the 1998 selection. The direction to issue appointment letter to the petitioner is to be in accordance with law. When the law requires that the successful candidates of the 1998 selection are required to participate in the interview then it cannot be said that the petitioner is to be issued appointment letter without participating in the interview and being successful therein. Consequently while rejecting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a contempt has been committed by the opposite parties by not issuing an appointment letter to the petitioner this court proceeds to consider as to whether they have committed contempt by issuing the advertisement of the year 2005 and 2007 whereby they have not considered the petitioners for being given appointment. Admittedly the respondents were entitled to hold an enquiry and take a decision with regard to interview for the 1998 selection. The defence of the respondents is that they have conducted an enquiry and taken a decision on 9. 5. 2007. It is after 9. 5. 2007 that their decision was to consider the successful candidates of the 1998 selection. Consequently when the advertisement was issued in the year 2005 the matter of the 1998 selection was under consideration by the respondents and no decision had been taken by them therefore the non consideration of the petitioners for the advertisement of 2005 cannot be read to mean that a contempt has been committed by the opposite parties. In so far as the advertisement of 2007 is concerned it appears to have been published on 28. 10. 2007 and it related to selection for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in District Hamirpur. From the aforesaid advertisement it appears that there is no provision for considering the successful candidates of the 1998 selection but the relaxation of age has been clearly stated in in Clause V of the said advertisement. Although there are two views possible with respect to Clause V firstly that the relief contemplated under the Government Order dated 9. 5. 2007 for relaxation of age has been provided in the advertisement and the other view that there is no specific mention regarding the candidates who were declared successful in the selection of 1998. In view of the aforesaid two views it cannot be said that the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the directions of the Writ Court passed in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma and in the case of the petitioner. The advertisement dated 5. 11. 2008 is also available on record and Clause V of the advertisement is quoted here under- (d) vk;q 01 tqykbz 2008 dks 18 o"kz ls de rfkk 35 o"kz ls vf/kd ugha gksuk pkfg,a vkjf{kr oxz ds vh;ffkz;ksa dks izhkkoh 'kklukns'k ds vuqlkj vk;q lhek esa Nwv nh tk;sxha ([k) ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh gehjiqj }kjk xzke iapk;r vf/kdkjh lewg x in dh Hkrhz gsrq tkjh fokfir fnukad 10- 8-1998 ds dze esa 'kklukns'k la[;k 1105 (1) 133and1and2007and98@2002 MCyw y[kum fnukad 9 ebz 2007 }kjk tkjh vkns'kkuqlkj mdr fokfir fnukad 7-8-1998 ds dze esa fnukad 13-12-1998 dks vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lk{kkrdkj gsrq mrrh. kz gq;s Fks os vh;fkhz bl Hkrhz izfdz;k esa ;fn vkosnu djrs gsa rks vk;q lhek esa Nwv@f'kffkyrk gsrq fopkj. kh; gksxka vh;fkhz fu/kkzfjr izk:i ij vkosnu ds lkfk vk;q lhek esa Nwv@f'kffkyrk iznku djus gsrq viuk izr;kosnu Hkh layxu djsaa From the aforesaid Clause it is quite clear that the directions issued by the Writ Court in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Verma and consequently in the writ petition of the petitioner has been duly complied with in accordance with the decision taken by the respondents authorities on 9. 5. 2007 therefore it cannot be said that the opposite parties are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act nor they have wilfully disobeyed the directions issued by the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs Subedar Devassy PV reported in 2006 (1) UPLBEC 745 to contend that the rightness or wrongness of the directions issued by the court cannot be gone into in a contempt application. The law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the contempt court cannot be disputed at all and it is settled law. In the present case no such rightness or wrongness of the order of the Writ Court is under consideration nor has been considered. It is the contempt alleged of the said orders passed by the Writ Court that has been considered and it is recorded that there is no wilful or deliberate disobedience committed by the opposite parties of the directions issued by the Writ Court. This contempt petition has no merit it is accordingly dismissed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are discharged. No order is passed as to costs. .;