JUDGMENT R.K. Gulati 1. This is an application under Section 12 of the contempt of court Act, 1971. The prayer is that the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are liable to be punished for having shown disobedience to the order of this court dated 2-1-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 13053 of 1987, Sri Pankaj Singh v. Labour Commissioner, U. P. and others. The order dated 2-1-1989 was to the following effect :- "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, we direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to make appointments on the posts of Class III and Class IV In future strictly, from the select list, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-I to the writ petition without disturbing the respondent no. 4". This application for contempt has been filed on the assertion that the opposite parties nave made appointment of two persons outside the select list, since after the above order was passed. 2. In reply to the show cause notice, the opposite parties have filed their respective defence by tiling separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit tiled by Attar Singh, the defence taken Is that the order dated 2-1-1989 passed in the writ petition was never served on him nor he had any knowledge of the same before 11th January, 1989. The appointments of two persons of which reference is made in the contempt application, were made before the deponent came to know of the order passed by this court. Under these circumstances, it is claimed that there was no willful disobedience on his part so as to warrant any action for contempt. In the rejoinder affidavit the aforesaid facts are not refuted. What has been stated in reply is that the opposite parties must be presumed to have knowledge of the directions contained in the order dated 2-1-1969 passed in the writ petition, inasmuch as, they were represented through their counsel at the time when the writ petition was decided. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant I am not satisfied that any case for contempt is made out. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant I am not satisfied that any case for contempt is made out. The argument that the opposite parties were represented through their counsel and they must they must be presumed to have the knowledge of the order which is alleged to have been violated, is of no assistance to the applicant. 4. In order to constitute a contempt within the meaning of Section 2 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971, the disobedience must be wilful. Clause (b) of Section 2 says "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or a wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. Where the contempt powers are sought to be Invoked it must be established that the contemner is liable for breach of injunction or similar orders. The Courts will be reluctant to to exercise their powers, and will do so only in the clearest cases, namely, where an offender having had proper notice of the order, has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt to have committed the contempt. In civil contempt as is evident from Section 2 (b), the emphasis is laid on the disobedience being wilful. In other words, every infraction of the courts order does not amount to contempt of court. It is only a wiiful and deliberate violation of the Court's order and contumacious conduct on the part of the contemner which is to be condemned in the contempt proceedings. In Jiwani Kumari v. Satyabrata Chakravorty, 1990 (2) ARC 521, the Supreme Court has laid down that before a party can be committed for contempt, there must be a wilful or deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court. Where no such wilful, or deliberate, or reckless disobedience of order in made out, the application for contempt is to be dismissed. 5. Disobedience cannot be held to be wilful unless the order is served Or at least the contemner must be shown to have the knowledge of the order which is alleged to be contravened or violated. To put it differently, the mental element in civil contempt must be establiseed. 5. Disobedience cannot be held to be wilful unless the order is served Or at least the contemner must be shown to have the knowledge of the order which is alleged to be contravened or violated. To put it differently, the mental element in civil contempt must be establiseed. To establish that a contemner is liable for breach of an injunction or similar order, the applicant must prove that copy of the order had been served on the alleged contemner and he had the knowledge of the order and he had acted in breach of the order. 6. In Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, AIR 1962 SC 1089 the Supreme Court has ruled that in the matter a prohibitory order it is well settled that it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted in order to Justify committal for breach of such an order provided it Is proved that the person complained against had notice of the order aliunde. It is a question of fact whether the persons concerned even though they had not been served with a copy of the order of the Court, had notice of the order aliunde. In the instant case, the opposite parties have sworn on affidavit that no copy of the order passed in the writ petition was everserved on them nor they had any previous knowledge of the order passed by this Court when the two persons were appointed outside the select list. I have already stated that this position is not refuted in the rejoinder affidavit, but the case for contempt is sought to be made out on the basis of constructive notice through the counsel, because when the writ petition was heard, the respondents were duly represented through their counsel. The case put forward on behalf of the applicant, in my opinion, is without any merit and cannot be accepted. . Contempt proceedings are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings and no person can be found guilty for disobedience of the orders unless the orders are either formally served or at least, the concerned officers have knowledge of the orders otherwise. . Contempt proceedings are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings and no person can be found guilty for disobedience of the orders unless the orders are either formally served or at least, the concerned officers have knowledge of the orders otherwise. A person cannot be charged with the committing contempt of court's order on the basis of constructive notice through the counsel for in the matter like this, actual knowledge of the order is sine qua non before finding a person guilty for committing disobedience of the order. 7. The contempt of court, in substance, consists of disrespect to the authority exercised through courts of law. The contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with the administration of justice. The purpose of proceedings in contempt is to maintain the confidence of the public at large in the fair and impartial administration of justice and dignity of the law courts. It is settled that where the contempt alleged is technical only, the court would exercise circumspection and judicial restraint in the matter of taking action for contempt of court. Now it is true, the appointments were contrary to the directions of this court but those appointments came to be made because of the ignorance of the opposite parties about the existence of the order passed by this court. The opposite parties have asserted that they had no personal knowledge of that order. It was for the applicant to have proved that the order of this court was disobeyed intentionally and wilfully. The applicant has miserably failed to discharge this burden. It is settled, in the event of doubt in these matters the contemner is entitled to the bonefit. In these circumstances, in the instant case, breach if any, was technical, of which this court is not inclined to take notice so as to haul up the opposite parties for the contempt of court. 8. In view of the above discussion, this application for contempt is without merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. Application rejected.