JUDGMENT Dr. Couto, J. -Mr. Andhyarujina, learned counsel appearing for the contemners states that the latter had no intention at all to flout and to disobey the orders of this Court and if anything was done that appears to be in violation of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 158/B/82, that was caused by a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the said judgment. The contemners tender unqualified apologies to this Court and state that the petitioner will be appointed to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager (Commercial) with effect from lst November, 1985 considering that the D. P. C. which had considered his claim and the claim of the other departmental candidates had not selected him only because it held wrongly that educational qualifications as per the prevailing Rules were to be considered in their cases and also bearing in mind that he is the senior-most Departmental candidate. 2. Mr. Rebello, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the contemners should consider also the claim of the remaining departmental candidates as against the second post which was fined in by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by appointing the fourth respondent and this should be done in accordance with the 1970 Rules, as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 26th April, 1985. 3. The respondent No. 2 who is present in Court, personally tendered apologies to this Court and stated that there was never intention on his part and on the part of the Mormugao Port Trust to disobey the orders of this Court. On the contrary, the Port Trust and he personally have the highest regard for this Court and will always comply with its directions and orders. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the contemners and the unqualified apology tendered by the second respondent to this Court, we are satisfied that it appears that in fact the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had no intention in flouting and disobeying the orders of this Court. We, therefore, accept the apologies on the condition that the first and second respondents appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager (Commercial) with effect from 1st November, 1985 was accepted by Mr. Rebello on behalf of the petitioner. 1 and 2 had no intention in flouting and disobeying the orders of this Court. We, therefore, accept the apologies on the condition that the first and second respondents appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager (Commercial) with effect from 1st November, 1985 was accepted by Mr. Rebello on behalf of the petitioner. We do not think it necessary to pass any further direction in respect of the appointment to the second post of Assistant Traffic Manager that had been filed by appointing the fourth respondent, because in the Writ Petition No. 158/B/82 the Division Bench was concerned only with the claim of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager (Commercial). We therefore, discharge the rule. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Rule discharged.