JUDGMENT R. E. Gulati, J.- 1. This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. The brief facts are these. The applicant was appointed as a teacher in L. T. grade in August, 1975 in Sushila Sharma Vigyan Mandir, Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shanti Nagar, Godhapur Jaspurapur. district Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the college). One Satish Chandra Sharma was the Principal of the college. In the year 1985 pending some enquiry against him he was suspended from service, when the applicant was made as officiating Principal. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the applicant and another teacher of the college, namely, Ram Govlnd Avasthi as to their seniority inter as and who was entitled to function as officiating Principal. By an order, dated 14-3-1986, the then Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, held that the other teacher was senior to the applicant. Consequently, by an order dated 28-4-1986, the District Inspector of Schools directed the applicant to hand over the charge of the office of Principal to Ram Govind Avasthi. Being aggrieved, the applicant moved this Court by filing a writ petition No. 7003 of 1986. Pending admission of the writ petition this Court granted an ad interim order dated 17-6-1986 which was to the following effect : "List alongwith writ petition at the time of admission. Meanwhile, the opposite parties shall not interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Principal of Sushila Sharma Vigyan Mandir, Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Shanti Nagar, Ganderapur, iaspurapur, district Farrukhabad". Earlier, the applicant filed another Contempt Petition No. 605 of 1989 against District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, Sri Jai Pal Singh Verma, asserting, inter alia, that he had knowingly violated the order passed in the writ petition. That contempt petition is still pending adjudication. On 14-8-1989 Sri Jai Pal Singh Verma was transferred and in his place, Sri Atma Ram Srivastava, the sole respondent in this Contempt Application was appointed as District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad. The grievance is that the present Inspector of Schools is also refusing to recognise the applicant as officiating Principal of the College despite the order of this Court dated 17th June, 1986, and other material about the functioning of the applicant as Principal of the College having been brought to his notice. The grievance is that the present Inspector of Schools is also refusing to recognise the applicant as officiating Principal of the College despite the order of this Court dated 17th June, 1986, and other material about the functioning of the applicant as Principal of the College having been brought to his notice. Further, the respondent is not attesting the signatures of the applicant which amounts to interfering in the functioning of the applicant as the Principal of the College. Thus it is asserted that the respondent is liable to be punished for contempt of this Court having flouted the order passed in the writ petition. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find there are no merits in this petition. 4. It is unfortunate that the applicant suppressed certain vital facts from this Court while moving the present application for contempt. From the defence filed by the respondent and from the rejoinder affidavit filed thereto, it is not in dispute that Satish Chandra Sharma at whose place the applicant was made as officiating Principal, was reinstated as permanent Principal of the College and he functioned as such between 20th February 1988 to 30th June, 1989 and then retired on attaining the age of superannuation. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant for the first time has some out with a case that on the retirement of Satish Chandra Sharma, the outgoing Principal, on 1st of July 1989 handed over the charge to him of the office of the Principal, and since then be is acting as officiating Principal. This position is not accepted in the defence filed by the respondent. However, as I am not concerned with the question about the propriety or otherwise of the applicant's functioning as Officiating Principal, in these proceedings, it is not necessary for me to dwel on this matter. In the defence filed, it is emphatically denied that the respondent has violated the order passed in the writ petition. However, at the same time, he has also tendered an unconditional apology, if it is found that there was any violation on bis part of the order passed by this Court. 5. Under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, amongst others, wilful disobediance of any direction or order or writ means a civil contempt. The expression 'disobedience' means neglect, disregard or refusal to obey. 5. Under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, amongst others, wilful disobediance of any direction or order or writ means a civil contempt. The expression 'disobedience' means neglect, disregard or refusal to obey. The term 'wilful' according to Shorter Oxford Dictionary means "asserting or disposed to assert one's own will against persuasion, instruction or command ; governed by will without regard to reasons". Thus, in relation to contempt of Court 'wilful disobedience' of an order means deliberate or intentional disregard of the order. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any overt act on the part of the respondent for which it can be held that he had disobeyed the order passed in the writ petition muchless disobedience was wilful. On the joining of the permanent Principal at his post In February, 1988, the efficacy of the order dated 17-6-1986 was impaired and in fact, it came to an end, inasmuch as the applicant ceased to be an officiating Principal of the College for other reasons the defence put forward by the respondent is that the interim order dated 17-6-1986, was granted because of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28-4-1986, which directed the applicant to handover the charge to Ram Govind Avasthi. That Order of the District Inspector of School itself become infructuous or redundant when the permanent Principal of the College reassumed the charge of his office. The operation of the order, dated 14-3-1986 by which inter se seniority was decided by the District Inspector of Schools, was never stayed by this Court and that order is very much alive and still operative, as a result of which. Ram Govind Avasthi is entitled to function as officiating Principal of the Gollege in preference to the applicant. 6. To find a person guilty of contempt of Court on the charge of disobedience, it must first be found out whether the order in respect of which violation is alleged, is such which could place the person required to follow the order in two minds or whether that order was capable of interpretation other than that which was alleged. 6. To find a person guilty of contempt of Court on the charge of disobedience, it must first be found out whether the order in respect of which violation is alleged, is such which could place the person required to follow the order in two minds or whether that order was capable of interpretation other than that which was alleged. Where two opinions are possible or a definite conclusion is not possible regarding a single interpretation, or oneness of the order, it would not be safe to hold a person guilty of the charge of the contempt for having acted upon interpretation what he bona fide thought to be the correct. As stated earlier, the ad interim order, dated 17-6-1986, lost its efficacy on the reinstatement of Satish Chandra Sharma who took over as permanent Principal of the College. This resulted in the cessasion of the applicant's working as officiating Principal and the order under which he was appointed as such, also came to an end. The claim that the applicant is again entitled to act as officiating Principal on the retirement of the permanent Principal, could be only in pursuance to some other order to that effect. It is nobody's case that such order, if any, is also the subject matter of the writ petition, which was filed in the year 1986. In any case, the bare fact that the applicant is again functioning as officiating Principal, has no relation to the order of this Court dated 17th June, [966 passed in the writ petition. In these circumstances, the applicant cannot with a justification camplain that the respondent is acting in violation of the said order in not according the attestation to the signatures of the applicant. The question whether the stand now taken by the respondent is legally sustainable or not, may provide a fresh cause of action to the applicant, but certainly it cannot be a subject matter of this contempt application. During the course of bearing, learned counsel for the applicant was required to spell out the nature of interference that is being caused to the applicant in his functioning as an officiating Principal of the College, because of non-attestation of his signatures by the District of Schools, but the learned counsel could not give any satisfactory reply. The contempt petition is also completely silent on this score. The contempt petition is also completely silent on this score. In my opinion, on the facts obtaining as notice above, no case for initiating contempt proceedings has been made out. 7. For what has been said above, this application is without any merit and is accordingly, rejected. Application rejected.