ORDER 1. This joint application is to initiate contempt proceedings against non-applicants for the alleged disobedience of the order passed in W.P. No. 7783/03 (OA No. 2530 of 2000). Said order was passed on 10.12.2003 and non-applicants were directed to consider and decide representations at an early date, preferably within three months. 2. Applicants herein filed OA No. 2530/2000 claiming their promotion on the posts of Science Teacher. During the pendency of said OA, the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal was abolished and said OA stood transferred to this Court and was registered as WP No. 7783/03. In the light of earlier decisions having bearing on the controversy, said petition was disposed off directing respondents therein to consider and decide representations as mentioned above. According to applicants, despite the order and a legal notice, non-applicants have failed· to comply with the order dated 10.12.2003 of this Court and as such rendered themselves liable for suitable action for the Contempt. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants at length and also perused material available on record. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 4.4.2005 (P-3) is not the compliance in the letter and sprit of the order dated 10.12.2003 and this amounts to wilful disobedience. Next he submitted that non-applicants were given three months, yet they passed the order on 4.4.2005 beyond the time framed specified. Thus, on both counts non-applicants are guilty of Contempt of Court. 5. From a bare perusal of order dated 4.4.2005, it is clear that non-applicants in compliance of order of this Court passed on 10.12.2003 considered and rejected representations for the reasons assigned in the order itself. Non-applicants found that the claim for promotion was contrary to the relevant recruitment rules. Now, it is well settled that one the non-applicants in compliance of order of this Court have considerer and rejected representations by order dated 4.4.2005, it is not open for this Court in the contempt jurisdiction to dissect said order and examine its correctness on merits. In this connection, one may profitably refer to the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (I) JLJ 352 2006 AIR SCW 343 [Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassy PV]. In view of the legal position, present proceedings are inappropriate to agitate correctness or validity of the order dated 4.4.2005 on the ground of alleged non-compliance. In this connection, one may profitably refer to the latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (I) JLJ 352 2006 AIR SCW 343 [Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassy PV]. In view of the legal position, present proceedings are inappropriate to agitate correctness or validity of the order dated 4.4.2005 on the ground of alleged non-compliance. It is beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction. Second submission relating to delay is also devoid of substance. It is well known fact that government functions through bureaucrats and in bureaucracy things move at a snail's pace. In this backdrop, one has to bear in mind that delay alone by itself would not constitute contempt unless it is contemptuous and deliberate to defeat the order of the Court. It is a special weapon and should be put to sparing and cautious use with the sole object to protect the administration of justice and majesty of law. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that there is no wilful disobedience of the order dated 10.12.2003 to initiate contempt proceedings. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.