IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3562 of 2011 Ajay Kumar Singh son of Sri Ram Sewak Singh, resident of village – Atardah, Police Station- Sadar, District Muzaffarpur ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. Rahul Singh, the Transport Commissioner, Vishweshvaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Mr. Baidyanath Prasad Daftuyar, the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna P.O. Veterinary College, Patna 14 4. Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, the Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna P.O. Veterinary College, Patna 14...Opp. parties ---------------------------------- 2 12-09-2011 Heard the parties. The writ petitioners and interveners want the Commission to declare the result of screening done by the Commission and call the writ petitioners for interview for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. They have raised a grievance that the Commission has been causing undue delay in the matter inspite of two months time granted earlier by order dated 27-4-2011 which was extended till September, 2011 by order dated 26-7-2011. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that on 3-9-2011 by annexure-7 to I.A. no. 6103/2011 the Commission has called 22 candidates to face interview on 20-9-2011. The stand of the Counsel for the Commission is that even after considering the 2 judgement of this court whereby true import of certain words were explained and hyper technicalities were ordered to be avoided, according to Commission, only 22 candidates have qualified for interview as per Rules and law. The writ petitioners and interveners have a grievance that the Commission is not acting fairly and properly and it has left out the writ petitioners and interveners although, as claimed by them, they are also entitled to be called for interview. Now when the date of interview has already been fixed by the Commission, this contempt petition will not serve any useful purpose because through it we were simply to ensure that the Commission completes the exercise within the time indicated by this court. Now the controversy between the writ petitioners and the interveners on the one side and the Commission on the other is on merits as to whether the cases of the writ petitioners and interveners have been properly considered or not. In our considered view, for raising this kind of dispute, even if the case of the petitioners 3 has merits, they should approach this court afresh by invoking writ jurisdiction. With this observation, this contempt petition and the interlocutory applications are finally disposed of. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)