IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3113 of 2006 SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 01.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite parties. It is not in controversy that the representation of the petitioner now stands disposed rejecting his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was no difference in the age mentioned in the educational qualifications certificate and that in the record of the Respondents at the time of appointment as a Home Guard. Therefore, the compliance of the order on the writ petition requires appointment of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the persons situate like the petitioner, appointed in the Home Guard below the prescribed age of 19 years have been given the benefit of appointment as Constable in the Police from the Home Guard category. Learned counsel for the Opposite parties submits from the order annexed to the show cause that the representation has been disposed with the reasoning that the petitioner obtained appointment as a Home Guard wrongly below the age of 19 years and, therefore, he could not be permitted to perpetuate this benefit wrongly given to him by the present appointment on that basis. The order on the writ petition was for disposal of the representation. That has been done. The Law stands well settled that if any further discussions are required, for a decision whether the order - 2 - has been flouted or not that cannot be the subject matter of a contempt proceeding. This Court refrains from making any further observation so that the matter be properly adjudicated if the petitioner so advised and prefers a fresh writ application. This application is disposed. AkS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)