IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.327 of 2010 1. SATENDRA RAI S/O MUNILAL RAI R/O VILL.- FATEHPUR, P.O.- PARSA (ANJANI), P.S. PARSAD, DISTT.- SARAN 2. BABU NAND S/O KALIKA PRASAD R/O VILL.- BISUNPUR, P.O. PARSA, P.S. PARSA, DISTT.- SARAN 3. VINAY KUMAR TIWARY S/O RAJ NARAYAN TIWRY R/O VILL.- LALAPUR, P.O. BAKSANDA VIA PARSA, P.S. PARSA, DISTT.- SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH MR. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH, THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. MR. BHIRGUNATH UPADHYAY, THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. MR. ASHUTOSH, THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. MR. SHALASTIN HANSDA, THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SARAN 5. MR. JAGATPATI CHAUDHARY, THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SARAN 6. MRS. CHHAYA KUMARI, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER SONPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 7. MR. NAVNATH MISHRA, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER DIGHWARA BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 8. MR. RAM SEVAK RAM, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER PARSA, BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 9. MR. SIYA SARAN PRASAD, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER MAKER BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 10. MR. DHANUSH DHARI MANJHI, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER MADHAURA BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 11. MR. MAN SINGH, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER AMNAUR BLOCK, DISTT.- SARAN 12. MR. SATYANARAYAN PASWAN, THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER DARIYAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN ----------- 03. 02.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order on the writ petition has not been complied with. A show cause is stated to have been filed on 2 behalf of State on 24.01.2011. Let the office trace it and place it on record. Issue in the writ petition related to a claim for appointment on the basis of a Baby Teachers Training certificate from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel for the State relies upon a Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 387 of 2009 holding that the aforesaid qualification was not valid for appointment. There is no occasion for the Court to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction in view of the Division Bench order. The grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the order in L.P.A. No. 387 of 2009, the authorities were nonetheless selectively granting recognition to the holders of the aforesaid qualification and providing appointment, is a matter which can more appropriately be considered in a writ petition only. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)