ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J. - This is an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act filed by the applicant Nasir Uddin Khan, Advocate on the ground that the opposite parties had disobeyed the directions of this court dated 25-2-1986 and are thus liable to be punished for contempt of Court. 2. Facts in a narrow compass are that the applicant appeared at a selection held by Public Service Commission U.P., for the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer and claimed benefit of the category of 'Handicaps', thus claiming consideration for the reserved posts. As the Public Service Commission did not consider the applicant against the reserved quota, a writ petition was filed in which the following direction was issued. "The petitioner appeared at a selection held by the Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer in the category of handicapped. The petitioner claimed that he was a handicapped person and as such he was entitled to be considered for the post reserved for handicapped persons. The Public Service Commission did not consider the petitioner against the quota reserved for handicapped persons hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has asserted that he is a physically handicapped person and in support of his assertion he filed a medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Bareilly. On behalf of the Public Service Commission a counter-affidavit has been filed by an Upper Division Assistant. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is asserted that the Chief Medical Officer's certificate was not acceptable as he did not mention the cause of disability and further the certificate does not at all mention the petitioner belonging to the category of a disabled person. We have perused the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The certificate contains details and the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer that he is a handicapped person. He is having his lower limb shortening and he has got deformity. It is really strange that the Chief Medical Officer's certificate has been challenged by an Upper Division Assistant, on behalf of the Public Service Commission no responsible officer has filed affidavit. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer is clear and there appears to be no reason to disregard the same. It is really strange that the Chief Medical Officer's certificate has been challenged by an Upper Division Assistant, on behalf of the Public Service Commission no responsible officer has filed affidavit. The certificate of the Chief Medical Officer is clear and there appears to be no reason to disregard the same. In the circumstances we allow the petition and direct the Commission to consider the petitioner's case against the post reserved for handicapped persons. Sd/- K. N. S. Sd/ R. S. D. 25-2-86" In view of the alleged wilful disobedience of the above direction the instant application under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed. 3. The case of the applicant is that the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 who are Chairman and Secretary respectively of the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad made an advertisement on 17-4-82 inviting applications in the prescribed form for the Post of Assistant Prosecuting Officer for recruitment of 460 posts through a competitive examination. The applicant submitted his form duly filled on 28-4-1982 and enclosing a certificate of the Chief Medical Officer claimed consideration for the reserved quota of 'handicaps'. The advertisement so issued by the Commission indicated that 9 vacancies would be filled in by physically handicapped persons. The grievance of the applicant then was that in the admit card so issued by the Commission he was not shown in the reserved category of handicapped persons. Although the applicant appeared in the examination of the year 1982 with his roll No. 00114 and also subsequently made representations that he is liable to be considered in the category of handicapped persons but to no avail. On the declaration of the result, the applicant apprehended that he was not considered in the category of handicapped persons and hence filed the writ petition in which the above direction was issued. 4. This application is being contested on behalf of the opposite parties Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, Chairman, Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Sri Basant Ballabh Pandey, Secretary, Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad. Notices were issued against the opposite-parties and they were permitted to appear through the counsel as to why they should not be punished for committing contempt of court in view of the wilful disobedience for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 25-2-1986. 5. Affidavits on behalf of opposite parties Nos. Notices were issued against the opposite-parties and they were permitted to appear through the counsel as to why they should not be punished for committing contempt of court in view of the wilful disobedience for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 25-2-1986. 5. Affidavits on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 namely Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, Chairman and Sri Basant Ballabh Pandey, Secretary (at the relevant time) respectively of U.P. Public Service Commission were filed. The allegations as contained in the application were repudiated. The opposite parties categorically denied that the applicant was not considered in the category of handicapped persons. It has been set out that the applicant could not achieve higher position and persons higher to him in merit in the category of handicapped persons have been selected for the 9 posts. 6. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed reiterating the allegations as set forth in the application and denying the averments as set forth in the counter-affidavit. 7. Admittedly Sri J.N. Chaturvedi opposite party No. 1 is the Chairman of U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, Sri Basant Ballabh Pandey was the Secretary of the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad at the relevant time when the direction dated 25-2-86 was issued. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri M.A. Quadeer has contended that there is no compliance to the directions as engrained in the order dated 25-2-1986. Non-consideration by the Commission of the applicant in the category of handicapped persons clearly smacks of the wilful disobedience of the opposite parties who are thus liable to be dealt with according to law. 10. Learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that the directions as contemplated in the order dated 25-2-1986 have been complied with. It has been submitted that the applicant was considered in the category of handicapped persons but on account of his securing a low position at serial No. 13 while only 9 persons from the category of handicapped persons were to be selected, the applicant could not be selected. 11. The question for decision is whether the applicant was considered in the category of handicapped persons as per the directions of the Court. 11. The question for decision is whether the applicant was considered in the category of handicapped persons as per the directions of the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Qadeer then very fairly conceded that if the opposite parties can show by producing original records that the applicant was considered in the category of handicapped persons and not selected on account of attaining a lower position then there would be a compliance to the orders of this Court dated 25-2-1986. 12. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the Commission by Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, Chairman, Public Service Commission U.P. Again the fairness of the learned counsel for the applicant reflected when it stated that he has not to file any rejoinder affidavit. 13. Original records were also produced by the opposite parties. 14. A perusal of the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri J.N. Chaturvedi and the original records reveal that candidates up to serial No. 9 have been selected. Applicant Nasir Uddin Khan is placed at serial No. 13. It is evident that the Commission has considered the applicant for the post in the category of 'Handicaps'. The application is thus wholly frivolous and ill-meritted. 15. Before parting with the case it has to be observed that in the instant case Sri J.N. Chaturvedi has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and action for disobeying the direction as contemplated by the order dated 25-2-86 is sought against him. In the writ petition U.P. Public Service Commission through its Secretary at Allahabad has been arrayed as opposite party No. 1 while State of U.P. through its Cheif Secretary at Lucknow and Director General of Prosecution, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow have been impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. No doubt a detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 repudiating the insinuations in the application but there is not a wish per in the counter-affidavit that the opposite party No. 1 has been erroneously impleaded. Admittedly no directions were issued against the Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission and as such the question of disobedience by the opposite party No. 1 Sri J.N. Chaturvedi who is Chairman of the Commission does not arise. It clearly indicates that in the counter-affidavit only the insinuation as contained in the application are denied. Admittedly no directions were issued against the Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission and as such the question of disobedience by the opposite party No. 1 Sri J.N. Chaturvedi who is Chairman of the Commission does not arise. It clearly indicates that in the counter-affidavit only the insinuation as contained in the application are denied. There is no indication in the counter-affidavit that the opposite party No. 1 Sri J.N. Chaturvedi cannot be proceeded against as he was not a party to the writ petition. It is thus manifestly reflective that the counter-affidavit in this case has not been filed looking to this aspect of the matter. Such a leisurely posture is indicative of the manner in which the counter-affidavit has been prepared in a routine and slip-shod manner. It would have been more appropriate to have high lighted this aspect before inviting embarrassment much less harassment to a senior officer. Even learned counsel for the Commission could not highlight this aspect which only reflects ignorance. 16. Another fact which cannot be lost sight of is that persons in the garb of directions issued by the courts have recklessly started seeking refuge to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The instant case is a manifest instance of such an abuse of the process of law. It is also set forth in the counter-affidavit that the applicant was informed that he was considered in the category of handicapped persons but could not be selected for his attaining a lower position in this category of handicapped persons. Still the applicant chose the forum by seeking redressal of his grievance as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act on the premise of insidious and baseless allegations. No doubt the State or its instrumentalities are the promoter of justice and social justice inheres the conscience of our Constitution and these two are the founding faith which sustain the Constitution and the country. The respondents who are limbs of the State and are besieged with a spirit to promote and administer according to rule of law but they cannot be put to ransom by individuals under the cloak of the Act. Somehow or the other there is no protection to the respondents against such abuse of the provisions of the Act. The respondents who are limbs of the State and are besieged with a spirit to promote and administer according to rule of law but they cannot be put to ransom by individuals under the cloak of the Act. Somehow or the other there is no protection to the respondents against such abuse of the provisions of the Act. However, ends of justice require that heavy costs be awarded which may prove detriment and may be an eye opener to such resort to wrongful exercise. It is a fit case in which heavy costs deserve to be awarded. Two factors weigh which require compassion. Firstly, opposite party No. 1 Sri J.N. Chaturvedi in his counter affidavit has nowhere stated that the application is not maintainable against him as no such direction was given to him. It has already been observed above that the counter-affidavit has been filed in a routine negligent or indifferent manner as regards the maintainability of the application vis-a-vis the opposite party No. 1. Another fact which has been stated at the Bar by Sri M.A. Qadeer is that the applicant who could not be selected has settled in the legal profession and is a young advocate. In view of these two considerations a nominal and token cost of Rs. 5/- (Five) only be awarded to be paid to the counsel for the opposite parties. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Sri Vinod Mishra submits that the applicant is a lawyer and displaying professional courtesy he submits that the costs may be paid to the opposite parties. 18. In the result the application failed and is hereby dismissed. The applicant shall pay token cost of Rs. 5/- (Rs. Five) only to each of the opposite party. He shall deposit the same within two months from today.