JUDGMENT Girdhar Malaviya, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also Sri A. N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. The basis for the alleged contempt in this application is the non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 12-11-1987 as confirmed by the order dated 29-8-1988 in Writ Petition No. 7638 of 1987 whereby the High Court had directed the respondents to reserve 50%, seats out of the total vacancies falling in any department of the State Government. The applicant alleged that there were vacancies for filling up the post of the Collection Amins to which the retrenched Amins had to be adjusted in view of a Government order of 1976 which has been annexed as Annexure 11' to the application, but according to the applicant, the respondents did not care to reserve 50% of the seats for the class of the applicant, thereby making them liable to be punished for contempt of Court inasmuch as the respondents had not complied with the directions. 3. On the notice being issued all the respondents have filed their counter affidavits. The stand taken in the counter-affidavits is identical. 4. It has been asserted in the counter-affidavits that Government order for reserving 50% seats has always been strictly followed. So far as the order passed by this Court on 12-11-1987. as confirmed by the order dated' 29-8-1988 is concerned, it has been alleged on the basis of the record in the counter-affidavits that these orders were, for the first time, delivered in the office of the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur on 8-4-1988 and 12-10-1988 respectively. It has been emphatically denied that any order was served on the District Magistrate on 3-12-1987. It has been further stated in the Counter-affidavits that when the applicant had approached the respondents along with his application and the order of the High Court in the writ petition, no vacancy was available at that time and as such the question of appointing any person on any post did not arise. It has been further clarified in the counter-affidavit that earlier two vacancies did occur in the month of October, 1990 out of which on one post an appointment of a scheduled caste Amin had been made, the other vacancy being filled up by appointing an old and experienced person whose earlier record was far better than any other person. It has been further clarified in the counter-affidavit that earlier two vacancies did occur in the month of October, 1990 out of which on one post an appointment of a scheduled caste Amin had been made, the other vacancy being filled up by appointing an old and experienced person whose earlier record was far better than any other person. It has been also made clear in the counter-affidavits that no vacancy existed at the time when the counter-affidavits had been filed. However, the counter affidavit further went on to say that whenever any vacancy would arise, 50% of the vacancy shall be filled up by reserving the same as per directions of the High Court. In view of the facts given in the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that they have never disobeyed and committed any contempt of any order passed by the High Court and they have been acting in good faith discharging their duties in accordance with the Rules. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the applicant I find nothing in the rejoinder-affidavit which may throw any doubt on the stand taken in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents in this case. 6. Accordingly, the application for punishing the opposite-parties for contempt is found to be devoid of any merit. This application is dismissed. The notice issued to the opposite parties stands discharged.