JUDGMENT : G.P. Mathur, J. This contempt petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondents for willfully circumventing the direction of the Full Bench decision dated 30.6.1998. The respondents arrayed in the petition are-(1) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dev Priya Mohapatra, Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court and (2) Sri S. S. Kulshrestha, Registrar High Court. 2. The petitioner Uma Kant Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995 arraying State of U. P. through Appointment Secretary. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar and 18 other private persons as respondents. The prayer made in the writ petition was that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to fill up all the existing vacancies of the quota of direct recruits by appointing the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules 1975, declaring the amendment in the Rules 8, 22 and 26 of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 as ultra vires, for a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in so far as it related to the appointment of direct recruits and promotion of persons belonging to the U. P. Nyayik Sewa to the Higher Judicial Service and for some other reliefs. This writ petition and some other similar petitions were heard by a Full Bench of three Judges. There was a difference of opinion between the members of the Full Bench and the directions issued by the majority of the Judges, while disposing of the writ petitions on 30-6.1998. are being reproduced below : "(i) The conversion of 13 posts of direct recruits, as available for promotion from Nyayik Sewa, is declared illegal and the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 2,11.1995 and the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in question in this regard are quashed. (ii) The appointees (respondent Nos. 3 to 15) will be deemed to be appointed on ad hoc basis only and not on substantive basis and that too till the final decision on this point to be taken by the Full Court. (iii) The Full Court is requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from 6' to 19' which was admittedly available as per report of the Selection Committee itself. (iii) The Full Court is requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from 6' to 19' which was admittedly available as per report of the Selection Committee itself. (iv) Hon'ble the Chief Justice is requested to take necessary steps expeditiously for formation of a Selection Committee, so that appropriate number of candidates be interviewed for the 13 remaining posts for direct recruitment to the H.J.S. (v) The petition for intervention of Vinod Kumar Verma (filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995) is rejected." 3. A Full Court meeting was convened on 11.7.1998 and the resolutions passed therein have been filed along with a supplementary affidavit. The relevant part of the resolution which has a bearing on the controversy raised, is being reproduced below : Re: Appointment In U. P. Higher Judicial Service i.e. direct recruitment 1992-94 batch and P. Nyayik Sewa. 2. Considered the direction contained In sub-paragraph (iii) of the operative portion of the judgment dated 30th June, 1998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995. Uma Kant Sharma v. State of U. P. and others and ten other cases. Consideration of reports dated 18.5.1998 and 16.5. 1998 of Selection Committee consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. S. Sinha Chairman, Hon'bleB a n e r j i and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Phaujdar in the matter. AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA Re : Recruitment in U. P. Higher Judicial Service. Resolved that the 13 left over vacancies of direct recruits will not be filled up from out of the applicants in the previous recruitment process of 1990, view of the fact that the succeeding process had already commenced since January. 1996 and Indeed, the report of the Selection the Full Court in this meeting. Consideration of directions given in the judgment dated 30.6.1998 In Writ Wo. 35384 of 1995.Uma Kant Sharma v. State of U. P. and petitions delivered by Hon'ble B. K. Roy. Hon'ble G. S. N. Tripathi. and Hon'bie S. K. Phaujdar. JJ. Further resolved that in view of the decision in respect of sub-paragraph (iii) of the operative in sub-paragraph(iv) of the operative consideration.5 Considered the report of the Selection comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. S. Sinha. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Banerji and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Phaujdar dated 9.7.1998 regarding promotion of 13 officers. JJ. Further resolved that in view of the decision in respect of sub-paragraph (iii) of the operative in sub-paragraph(iv) of the operative consideration.5 Considered the report of the Selection comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. S. Sinha. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Banerji and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Phaujdar dated 9.7.1998 regarding promotion of 13 officers. who were declared to be holding the posts on ad hoc basis in the judgment dated 30th June, 1998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995 and 10 other writ petitions. Resolved that the report of the Selection Committeetantive appointment be approved with regard to the following 12 officers A perusal of the agenda taken up for consideration by the Full Court would show that the directions issued in the judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 in Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995, Uma Kant Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, were also taken up for consideration. The Full Court passed a resolution that 13 left over vacancies of direct recruits will not be filled up from out of the applicants in the previous recruitment process of 1990. It was further resolved that in view of the decision in respect of sub-para (iii) of the operative portion of the aforementioned Judgment, the direction contained in sub-para (iv) of the operative portion needs no consideration. 4. Sri R. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 1 willfully disobeyed the specific direction of the Full Bench for constituting a Selection Committee and respondent No. 2 also willfully disobeyed the direction to consider the matter afresh and thereby they have committed contempt of court. In my opinion, the contention raised is wholly devoid of merit. The direction issued by the majority in the Full Bench judgment was a limited one. The Full Court was requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from 6 to 19 and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was requested to take necessary steps for formation of a Selection Committee so that appropriate number of candidates be Interviewed for the 13 remaining posts for direct recruitment to the H.J.S. The Full Court considered the Judgment but resolved that 13 left over vacancies of direct recruits will not be filled up from out of the applicants in the previous recruitment process of 1990. In view of this resolution, the question of Hon'ble the Chief Justice taking necessary steps for formation of a Selection Committee for holding interview for the 13 posts did not arise at all. In fact the Full Court itself passed a resolution that the direction contained in sub-para (iv) of the judgment did not require any consideration in view of the resolution passed in respect of sub-para (iii) of the judgment. 5. It may be noticed that the judgment of the Full Bench was delivered during the summer vacation on 30.6.1998. The High Court reopened on 4.7.1998 which was a Saturday and the functioning of the Court actually commenced on 6.7.1998. The Full Court meeting was held on 11.7.1998 which was holiday being a second Saturday. This would show that the directions issued in the decision of the Full Bench dated 30.6.1998 were taken up for consideration by the Full Court with great promptitude and at the earliest possible time. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act defines "civil contempt" and it means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. The term 'willful' means clear Intention to flout. A willful act means an intentional and deliberate act. In civil contempt, the emphasis is laid on the disobedience being 'willful'. The facts of the present case show that as per the directions Issued in the judgment dated 30.6.1998, the meeting of the Full Court was immediately convened wherein the question of increase in vacancy was considered. The Full Court having resolved not to Increase the vacancies from 6 to 19, the question of respondent No. 1 constituting a Selection Committee for holding interview for the 13 posts did not arise at all. The judgment of the Full Bench has been complied with in its entirety. It cannot be said even remotely that there has been any non-compliance or disobedience of the judgment. Thus, there is absolutely no ground for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. 6. The petition is wholly devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.