IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2519 of 2010 BINDA PRAKASH . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . with C. REV. No.93 of 2011 THE STATE OF BIHAR . Versus BINDA PRAKASH & ORS. . ----------- For the Petitioner in Civil Review: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, S.C.V. For the Private Respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. 3/ 13/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as B.P.S.C.). C.W.J.C. No.15994/07 directed consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment as C.D.P.O. setting aside the order striking out her name from the list of successful candidates on the ground that the caste certificate furnished by her was issued by the District Magistrate of the place where she was residing and not that of her place of permanent residence. It is not in dispute that the order of the Court was served in the Department of Social Welfare on 22.8.2008. In the review application preferred by the Department of Social Welfare it is urged that it was not made a party respondent to the writ application though it has been made an opposite party in the contempt application. Full and proper facts could not be placed before the Court when the writ application was disposed. Paragraph-16 of the review application suggests that there 2 may be no vacancies available. But the review application itself at paragraph-18 acknowledges that the B.P.S.C. revised the recommendation on 21.4.2009 and sent 261 names out of which only 232 had been appointed. It is not in dispute that subsequently further vacancies had been notified. Technically the contention of not being a party respondent in the writ application is of no avail to the Department of Social Welfare. It stands beyond controversy from the review application that the B.P.S.C. made revised recommendations including the name of the petitioner. No justifiable explanation has been given for making appointments from the panel of persons below the petitioner in pursuance of any revised recommendation of the B.P.S.C. after the Department of Social Welfare had become aware of the order in C.W.J.C. No.15994/07 served upon it on 22.8.2008 without considering the case of the petitioner. The Court is satisfied that the review application has no merit. But simultaneously in view of the revised recommendations made by the B.P.S.C. on more than one occasion, certain other orders of this Court in writ applications preferred by certain others leading to revised recommendations by the B.P.S.C. etc. the present cannot 3 be classified as a simple act in defiance of the orders of this Court amounting to willful contempt. The matter necessitates further directions. If there are vacancies available, the petitioner may be considered for appointment against the same. If there are no vacancies available, if any recommendation was made by the B.P.S.C. after 22.8.2008, including the name of the petitioner, but a person below the petitioner has been appointed quite obviously corrective action has to be taken by the Department of Social Welfare in accordance with law so that any appointment made from the recommendation of the B.P.S.C. has to be strictly in accordance with the merit panel. It is clarified that the present order is not a carte blanche to the Department of Social Welfare to act contrary to the law under the guise that they are acting under the orders of this Court. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Department of Social Welfare. The review and the contempt application both stand disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)