IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1504 of 2004 DEO BHUSHAN KUMAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner : None For the opposite parties : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III Mr.Satyabir Bharti, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General-III --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 06th August, 2008 None appears for the petitioner. In his absence with the assistance of the Additional Advocate General-III, we considered the available material and supplementary show cause dated 05th August, 2008 filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner being CWJC No.11255 of 2003 came to be disposed of on 19th March, 2004 by the following operative order: “I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna to dispose of the petitioner’s representation by speaking order within a period of three months from the date of submission of copy of this order. He shall be obliged to take into consideration the earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioner and the judgment delivered in C.W.J.C. No.6480 of 1999. The Regional Deputy Director is forewarned that if - 2 - within three months from the date of submission of copy of this order he does not pass speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner then that would be considered to be a serious lapse on his part and he may be exposing himself to a serious risk.” 3. The opposite party no.2 passed an order on the 22nd of June, 2004 in pursuance of the order dated 19th of March, 2004 quoted above. The petitioner has raised the grievance that the order dated 22nd June, 2004 is in utter disregard and defiance of this court’s order dated 19th March, 2004. 4. In the supplementary show cause, the opposite party no.2 has explained that the case of discrimination sought to be set up by the petitioner has no legs to stand and that the petitioner’s case is not similar to that of Arun Kumar, Shankar Paswan, Lal Babu Choudhary and Braj Kishore Verma. In paragraph 6 of the supplementary show cause, following statement has been made: “6. That from perusal of the instant contempt application, it would appear that the petitioner has tried to make out a case of discrimination between his case and the cases of Arun Kumar, Shankar Paswan, Lal Babu Choudhary and Braj Kishore Verma. In that context, it is respectfully submitted that the case of the petitioner, Deo Bhushan Sharma is quite distinguishable with the cases of the aforesaid four persons on the following grounds: (i) Vacancies for the post of Vaccinator against which Deo Bhushan Sharma was appointed were for Reserve Category whereas Sri Sharma belonged to General Category. (ii) Among Reserve category, namely, (i) Sri Arun Kumar (2) Sri Shankar Paswan, (3) Sri Lal Babu Choudhary and (4) Braj Kishore Kumar Verma were appointed under the establishment of the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna - 3 - Division, Patna as per decision of the Selection Committee. (iii) A waiting list for Reserved category was to be maintained but the name of Sri Deo Bhushan Sharma who was from General Category was included at Sl. No.4 ignoring the rules. (iv) The candidature of the waiting list candidate at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 was not considered for appointment whereas Shri Sharma, who was at Sl.No. 4 of the waiting list was considered and appointed. (v) Sri Deo Bhushan Sharma was appointed on the post of Vaccinator at Primary Health Centre, Hilsa, which was not under the establishment of the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and for this Regional Deputy Director was not competent. (vi) That in the appointment of Sri Sharma, Reservation rules were not followed and the appointment was made beyond the establishment of the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services.” 5. Having carefully considered the matter, we are of the view that the respondents, more particularly respondent no.2, cannot be held guilty of having deliberately or intentionally disobeyed the order of this court dated 19th of March, 2004. No case for invocation of contempt jurisdiction is made out. 6. MJC is, accordingly, disposed of . R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil