IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2441 of 2004 SURESH PRASAD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite parties. : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, J.C. to G.A. -V --------- P R E S E N T Hon’ble the Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 5th August, 2008. The petitioner approached this Court for direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization on Class IV post by filing the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 850 of 2004). The said writ petition was disposed of on 10th May, 2004 by the following order- “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, concerned respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in compliance of the order dated 10th May, 2004, the - 2 - representation has not yet been considered. In response to the contempt application (MJC), cause has been shown by the opposite party no.2. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the show – cause, following statement has been made : “4. That the present deponent further tenders unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Hon’ble Court for delayed compliance of the order dated 10.05.04 passed in C.W.J.C. No.850/04. Since the representation of the petitioner was heard by three Member Committee consisting of Officer in-charge of Najarat, Establishment Deputy Collector and Deputy Collector in charge( confidential), Collectorate, Khagaria and certain observations were made by the Committee in the light of law settled by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case the Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 in consonance with the relevant circulars/letters of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. That it is further most respectufully submitted that taking into account the facts available on record the deponent has passed a reasoned order in terms of direction of Hon’ble court dated 10.5.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 850/ 04 and claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected vide memo no. 249 dated 22.7.2008.” 3. Thus, it seems that representation of the petitioner has been considered by the Three men Committee and disposed of by the order dated 22nd July, 2007. It is true that the representation has not been decided within the time granted by this Court but now, since the representation has - 3 - been rejected, we find no justification to take any action against the opposite parties under contempt jurisdiction. 4. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. Anil/ R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J.