Judgment This application alleged civil contempt by disobedience of the order of this Court dated 28-11-2007 passed in W.P.S. No. 3439 of 2007. By that order this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamau to decide the claim contained in the representation to be filed by the petitioner within eight weeks of the filing of the representation. The response filed by the respondents encloses a copy of the decision dated 3-3-2008 taken pursuant to this Court’s order dated 28-11-2007. It is a reasoned decision rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner claims this to be an attempt to circumvent this Court’s order, and in the alternative to be a biased decision by way of a vindictive response by the respondent. I have heard both sides. For appreciating the petitioner’s contention, the original issue between the parties needs to be examined, which is briefly stated below. Under the Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan (education for all programme) certain teachers of the primary level are appointed on contractual basis. These are known as para teachers. Given the backdrop that these are short term contractual appointments, it has been provided that the selection for such appointment is to be made at a general meeting (aam sabha) of the village, which means that it is some kind of an election. The two embargos are that (1) the candidate should have passed class 10 at least, and (2) the person selected /elected should be a resident of the same village/tola; and only if an eligible/qualified person of the same village/tola is not available, then a resident of adjoining village/ tola may be selected. Residence in the same village/tola can be expected to ensure personal knowledge on part of the teacher about the students, their families, their circumstances etc., which may be an important aid in dealing with the students at that primary level. The rest of the conditions prescribed are only guidelines and not mandatory if the selection is by the general meeting. These other guidelines would become relevant only in the selection is by the education committee. The rest of the conditions prescribed are only guidelines and not mandatory if the selection is by the general meeting. These other guidelines would become relevant only in the selection is by the education committee. The reason is that while the committee cannot act arbitrarily, but the policy of selection by general meeting has been provided on the supposition that the residents of the village are in the best position to democratically look after their own interest by deciding who is the best person to teach their own children having regard to the candidate’s character, ability and other antecedents. The candidates being from the same small local area, it can be safely assumed that the villagers would be fully aware about the candidates. It is more than obvious that (1) such guidelines are not capable of enforcement when selection is by election, and (2) if selection has to be a mere ministerial exercise by appointing the person having highest qualification or highest marks according to the guidelines, then the general meeting will become purposeless. The above view is also reinforced by the fact that the committee has been given limited grounds for interfering with the general body decision e.g. Where the general meeting is unable to select or selects a candidate not eligible. The petitioner had moved this Court by W.P.S. No. 3439 of 2007 on the ground that he had secured higher marks in the intermediate examination as compared to the selected candidate. It was not disputed that both the petitioner as well as the selected candidate were eligible for the appointment. As stated above these higher marks may have been a relevant consideration if the selection was being made by the committee, but not when the selection/election is by the general meeting. Moreover according to the decision dated 3/3/08 the candidate selected at the general meeting was a resident of the same Tola where the school is located, while the petitioner was a resident of the western Tola of the village Rabda. The selection/election has been justified in the decision dated 3/3/08 on the ground of proximity of residence. Higher marks in intermediate examination was not a ground on which the general meeting decision could be interfered with. Civil contempt, which means “willful” disobedience of an order of the Court, arises either upon a clear non-compliance with the Court’s order ie. The selection/election has been justified in the decision dated 3/3/08 on the ground of proximity of residence. Higher marks in intermediate examination was not a ground on which the general meeting decision could be interfered with. Civil contempt, which means “willful” disobedience of an order of the Court, arises either upon a clear non-compliance with the Court’s order ie. if no decision has been taken as directed by the Court. It may also include cases where the purported compliance is a mere eye wash. However, where the Court’s order has been complied with by taking a decision which may not be strictly justifiable in law, it may give rise to a cause of action for challenging that legally unsustainable order but it will not give rise to a cause of action for civil contempt. If, however, the order so passed by the authority in purported compliance of the court’s direction shows that (1) it is a mere eye wash and no genuine attempt by the authority to take a decision, or (2) an attempt to circumvent to this court’s direction by a mere sham exercise, it may still amounts to civil contempt subject of course to other circumstances. The above cases are illustrative and not necessarily exhaustive. In this case, far from the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Opposite Party no.3 being of a kind as to be called an eye wash, it is legally correct. In the circumstances, it cannot be said to be a case of civil contempt by way of willful disobedience of the direction of this Court. This contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.