IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.631 of 2007 SURESH PRASAD MANDAL, S/o Sri Sundar Mandal, R/o Udakshanganj, P.S. Udakishanganj, District Madhepura … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajesh Kumar, the District Magistrate, Madhepura 3. Mahendra Kumar Bharti, the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Madhepura, Collectoriate, Madhepura. 4. Suresh Prasad Sah, the Subdivisional Officer, Uda Kishanganj, Madhepura 5. Ziaul Haque, the Block Development Officer, Udai Kishanganj, Madhepura, …. Opp. Parties. ----------- 8 04.01.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court claiming violation and disobedience of the order dated 26.9.1997 passed by this Court. In the aforesaid order direction was to prepare a fresh panel within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order and to consider the case of the petitioner also in the said panel, and thereafter to consider the question of granting fresh appointment on the basis of the said panel. The petitioner claims to have been working as a Jeep Driver since 1983. The contempt application has been filed after a lapse of nearly ten years after passing of the order. It is stated in the show cause filed by the opposite parties that in the meantime according to the instruction of the State Government the post of Jeep Driver now comes under Group C post and the same cannot be filled up from such panel, rather the same has to be done on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission as per circular issued in the year 2005. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner has been accordingly considered by the present opposite party on the basis of aforesaid resolution dated 30.1.2005. It was found that he does not fulfill the necessary educational qualification of Class VIII passed as per the Bihar Vehicle Driver (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2005 and his case was rejected vide order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhepura. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not approached this Court for nearly a decade after the passing of the order under contempt, during which period the mode of appointment, etc. has already been changed by Rules framed by the Government, it does not appear to be a fit case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction at this belated stage. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Spd/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)