IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.100 of 2010 Pawan Kumar, S/O Sri Charitar Prasad Yadav, R/O Vill.- Paharpur, P.S.- Simri Bakhtiarpur, Distt.- Saharsa, Presently Posted As Panchayat Sewak At Gram Panchayat- Itahari Within Banma Itahari Prakhand in the District of Saharsa ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Badhnath Prasad, the Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. R.Laxamnan, the District Magistrate, Saharsa 4.Mukesh Dutta, the District Panchayat Officer, Saharsa ---Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 3. 9.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed for initiating a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties alleging their wilful and deliberate disobedience of the direction of this Court as per the order dated 13.1.2006 passed in CWJC No.3917 of 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the aforesaid order, the writ application was disposed of with the directions/observations, which is quoted hereunder: “In such view of the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already been trained during the pendency of the writ petition, he be forthwith given an appointment in the place where the respondent no.5 had been appointed and the respondent no.5 be reverted back to the post he was earlier holding. The respondent no.5 shall only be entitled to be appointed as and when there shall be a next vacancy to the post of Panchayat Sevak.” - 2 - It is submitted that pursuant to the above order, the writ petitioner of the said case, namely Dhirendra Kumar Yadav was appointed in place of the present petitioner Pawan Kumar, who was respondent no.5 in the aforesaid writ application and the present petitioner was reverted back to the post he was earlier holding. While disposing of the aforesaid writ application, this Court observed that respondent no.5, petitioner herein, shall only be entitled to be appointed as and when there shall be a next vacancy to the post of Panchayat Sevak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the vacancies were available, 39 persons were appointed, but this petitioner, who was respondent no.5, was not appointed and as such the authorities have committed the contempt of the Court. The State has appeared and filed their show cause wherein it has been specifically stated that there is no vacancy against which the case of respondent no.5-petitioner herein, could not have been considered. Considering the submissions of the parties and the order of this Court, it appears that this Court directed the State for appointment of the writ petitioner in place of the petitioner herein, who was respondent no.5, and he was directed to be reverted back to the post he was earlier holding. However, there is no such direction to the State for appointment of respondent no.5, but the observation is that he shall only be entitled to be appointed as and when the vacancy arises. In view of the specific statement made in the show - 3 - cause that there is no vacancy against which the petitioner could have been appointed, I do not find that any case for contempt is made out against the respondent-authorities, more so in absence of any positive direction for appointment of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contempt application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)