IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2008 Smt. Sahista Khan … Petitioner Vs Sri Vinod Kumar & another … Respondents Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the petitioner has prayed for summoning the respondents to punish them for willful and deliberately disobedience of the order dated 21st July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 494 of 2008 (S/S), Sahista Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand & others. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers filed with the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction, that respondent no. 3 shall issue the appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher, Urdu, ignoring the fact that after appearing in written examination she crossed age of 40 years, provided she is otherwise qualified to be appointed.” 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 and in paragraph No. 6, it has stated as under:- “That in the said merit list prepared, on the basis of year of passing the Moallium-E-Urdu Training qualification, the petitioner found place at Serial No. 5 as she has obtained her Moallium-E-Urdu Training qualification in the year 1997. Prior to petitioner in said merit list (i) Sri Gulam Mustafa found place at serial no. 1 (ii) Smt. Faraha Fathma, found place at serial no. 2, (iii) Smt. Rihana Khatoon found place at serial no. 3 and Sri Mohd. Ayub Khan found place at serial no. 4. Since Sri Gulam Mustafa who was at serial no. 1 was over aged as such the case of Smt. Faraha Fathma who was serial no. 2 was considered for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu).” 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 further reveals that the case of the petitioner was again reconsidered by the respondent vide its detailed and speaking order dated 11.12.2008. The claim of the petitioner was not found fit as such her representation was rejected. The order dated 11.12.2008 annexed as annexure No. 2 to the couter affidavit filed by the respondent. 5. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no justification to continue the contempt petition against the respondents furthermore. 6. For the reasons state above, the contempt petition is dismissed. The notices issued against the respondents are hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 04.05.2009 ASWAL