JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - The Petitioner had qualified himself in the degree of Ayurveda alongwith modern Medicine & Surgery from State of Bihar. Advertisement was published by the State Government for appointment of Aurvedic Medical Officer The qualification prescribed is a degree in Ayurveda from recognised University of U.P., registered by the Board of Indian Medicines U.P. and six months house job The Petitioner since had qualified from State of Bihar, his application for employment as a Ayurvedic Doctor in U. P was rejected The Petitioner had filed a writ petition in which by an interim order dated 8 9-87, the Division Bench had directed "till further orders, the Respondents are restrained from rejecting the application form filed by the Petitioner on the ground of condition No. 1 (Annexure 3 of the writ petition)" 2. The said writ petition came up for final hearing before Hon'ble B M. Lal, J. and the Hon'ble Judge was pleased to allow the petition relying another judgment of a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 17307 of 1984 Ashok Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State and Ors. The operative part of the judgment reads as under. This court held that obtaining a degree from outside the State cannot be a ground for discrimination. This being so, on the same parity of law, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The Respondents are directed to declare the result of the Petitioner and if he is declared successful, to issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner. 3. After the judgment of this Court, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Health Secretary, State of U.P. enclosing the certified copy of the order of the High Court dated 23-1-92. Said application was received in the Office of Secretary, Health Centre, State of U.P. Shasan, U.P. Lucknow on 31-1-92 4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that it is near about more than three months, the Respondents have neither issued any appointment letter nor declared the result The conclusion is that opposite party has committed contempt of High Court's order and is liable to be punished for disobedience of the High Court's order. 5. The law of contempt is technical and is to be enforced carefully. The writ petition of the Petitioner was allowed with the direction, "if he is declared successful to issue an appointment order in favour of the Petitioner". 5. The law of contempt is technical and is to be enforced carefully. The writ petition of the Petitioner was allowed with the direction, "if he is declared successful to issue an appointment order in favour of the Petitioner". This does not mean that there was any specific direction by the High Court that it is to be carried out in a specified period Unless a specific direction was contained in the judgment of the High Court, it cannot be said that the opposite party knowingly and deliberately flouted the orders of the High Court. It is only about three months have passed since filing of the certified copy of the order, this petition for taking proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act filed. Opposite parties may have not complied the orders of the High Court for any other reason or inability without there being any intention of disobedience of High Court's order. It cannot be said always that sufficient time has already elapsed and the opposite parties kept silent in the matter unnecessarily with certain purpose or intention to disobey the High Court's order. 6. The settled law on the aspect is that in a case where the order which is said to be not obeyed unless there is some specific direction by the Court for complying the said order within a specified period, it cannot be said that the opposite parties disobeyed the order and committed wilful contempt of High Court's order. In a similar matter, this Court was pleased to hold that in such circumstances when there is no specific d reaction of the court fixing any time limit for compliance, it was necessary for the Petitioner to approach the same Hon'ble Judge with an affidavit for fixing a date, a time limit for compliance of the said order. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he had conducted the same course, but the Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject the application for fixing a time limit for compliance of the High Court's order by the Respondents. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am not satisfied that any case for action for disobedience of the High Court's order is made out for issuance of notice for contempt of High Court's order. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am not satisfied that any case for action for disobedience of the High Court's order is made out for issuance of notice for contempt of High Court's order. However, the rejection of this application for taking action under contempt of High Court's order, does not mean that the Respondents are free to disobey the order and not comply the orders of the High Court dated 23-1-92 for an indefinite period It is expected that the Department shall take necessary steps for complying with the orders of the High Court within a reasonable time There is no exact definition for reasonable time In my opinion, a period of three weeks would be sufficient period for complying the High Court's order. I, therefore, direct the Respondents to comply with the order and declare the result of the Petitioner and if he is declared successful, thereafter in next three months Respondents to issue appointment letter so as to comply the further directions in the judgment dated 23-1-92. 8. With these observations, the contempt petition is dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel in seven days on payment of usual charges.