Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Yogendra Pati Tripathi learned Counsel for the applicant. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Let the same be taken on record.

2. This contempt petition has been filed against the opposite party alleging deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 10.7.2006 passed by this Court in WP No. 35134 of 2006. Notices were issued to the opposite parties on 9.5.2007.

3. A perusal of the order dated 10.7.2006 indicates that this Court considered the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to be sent for Special BTC Training Course and he had made a representation which is pending consideration before the authority concerned. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authority concerned to consider and decide the aforementioned representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. According to the averments made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit supporting this contempt petition, it appears that the order of this Court was served on the opposite party through various representations made by the applicant. However, when the opposite party did not pass any order on the representation of the applicant, this contempt petition has been filed.

4. An affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of Miss. Achala Khanna, Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow to state that by an order dated 3.7.2007 (Annexure CA-1), the representation of the applicant has been finally decided. It has been stated in the affidavit that there has been some delay in deciding the matter. However, the same is not wilful or deliberate on the part of the opposite party.

5. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant wherein in paragraph 5 it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the opposite party and hence he was compelled to file the present contempt petition and the decision now taken is beyond the time granted by this Court and also on merits the same is illegal, incorrect and wrong. In paragraph 7 it has been stated that the petitioner has completed his B.Ed Degree as a regular candidate and passed B.Ed examination in 1st Division in 1994. The cut off marks was 286.58% but intentionally the opposite party has not sent the applicant for Special BTC Training Course although he was selected for the course in the year 2005 as an OBC candidate and the name of the petitioner was placed at SI. No. 9 of the select list published on 22.9.2005. It is therefore, stated that even the order dated 3.7.2007 has been passed against the factual aspects and hence is illegal and is not a compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 10.7.2006.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsels for the parties and perused the records, it is not disputed that this Court by the order dated 10.7.2006 passed in the writ petition required the representation of the petitioner to be decided within two months by a reasoned and speaking order. Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner has been decided much after two months. However, in the affidavit of compliance filed by the opposite party it has been stated that she has been posted as Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow since 22.5.2007 and earlier she was posted as Director, Rajya Saikshik Anusandhan and Training Course, Lucknow.

7. A perusal of the order dated 3.7.2007 indicates that the opposite party has passed a reasoned and speaking order whereby it has been held that the petitioner is legally not entitled for admission to the Special BTC Training Course, 2004.

8. Insofar as the delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that even after issue of notice in contempt proceedings, if the opposite party complies with the directions to decide the representation of the petitioner, the Courts would not