COPC No. 10 of 2006 21.4.2008 Present: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. CMP No. 769 of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the contempt petition is restored to its original number. The application stands disposed of. COPC 10 of 2006 The petitioner had filed a writ petition in this court which was disposed of vide judgment dated April 19, 1996. This court while disposing of the writ petition had passed the following directions:- “We direct the respondents to consider promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer from the post of Surveyor when his turn comes.” The complaint of the petitioner in the contempt petition is that the respondents have violated the orders of this court inasmuch as they have not considered the petitioner for promotion and his juniors have been promoted in 2003. The contempt petition was filed on 5th April, 2006. Notice was issued. Reply to the notice has been filed and the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be promoted since he did not fulfill the necessary qualification of having three years diploma in the trade of Civil Engineering. According to the respondents, as far as post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) is concerned, Surveyors do not fall in the feeder category. We are not going into the merits of the case. In the present case we are only concerned whether the respondents have committed contempt of court or not. Contempt of court is committed when there is willful disobedience of the orders of the court. In the present case the direction was only that the petitioner should be considered for the post. If according to the respondents he was not eligible, then obviously he could not have been promoted. We are not entering into the controversy as to whether the petitioner was actually eligible or not. This is a matter which cannot be decided in contempt proceedings. In case the petitioner has any grievance in this regard and feels that he was eligible for promotion, he may take appropriate action in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances. As far as the present petition is concerned, in our view, no contempt is made out. There is no willful disobedience of the orders of this court. The petition is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 21, 2008(K) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.