IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.668 of 2006 SMT.BINDULA KUMARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the appellant :Mr. D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Hari Shankar Roy, Advocate. For the respondents :Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad ----- Dated, the 10th July, 2008. This contempt application has been taken out by the petitioner alleging that the order dated 11.2.1993 has been disobeyed. 2. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.2.1993 of which contempt is alleged reads thus: “Having taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case we direct Bihar Public Service commission to consider the grievance of the petitioner and in case she is found legally qualified for recommendation to the post in question, necessary orders for recommendation etc. may be made, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion with regard to the merit of the case. It is for the respondents to consider and decide the same.” 3. A written response by way of counter affidavit has been filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission. In the counter - 2 - affidavit, the order of the Single Judge passed by this Court in MJC No.242 of 1993 dated 30th of March, 1999 has been referred, wherein the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1997(3) SCC 1998 has been considered and the Supreme Court concerning the advertisement dated 21/1987 had directed the Bihar Public Service Commission not to take any further action upon the lists prepared by the State Service Selection Board, nor recommend any name for different posts in Class III from these lists. 4. It is relevant to reproduce here the relevant portion of the Supreme Court decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 198 which reads thus: “Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions off the parties and on carefully examining the materials on record we find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and we are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Sharan, the learned counsel for the respondents. True it is, this Court did not entertain a special leave petition on 05.09.1994 when the State of Bihar had challenged an order of the Patna High court. But it is crystal clear that when the Court did not entertain the special leave petition, the report of Shri Biswas had not been brought to the notice of the Court nor the Court was aware of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed by the Subordinate Services Selection Board in the matter of making selections and recommending names for different posts in Class III. We have no doubt in our mind that if the irregularities and illegalities found by Shri Biswas would have been placed before the Court, the Court would not have hesitated in entertaining the matter and cancelling the lists altogether. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed gross error of law in passing the mandamus requiring the Public Service Commission and the State to give appointment to the respondent even after going through the Biswas Committee Report which in no-uncertain terms indicates the gross irregularities - 3 - and illegalities committed by the Service Selection Board in the matter of holding the examination and drawing the list of successful candidates . . . . . . . In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the order of the Patna High Court and the writ petition filed by the respondents stands dismissed. We also further direct that the Bihar Public Service Commission need not take any further action upon the lists prepared by the State Service Selection Board nor recommend any names for different posts in class-III from these lists.” 5. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the writ petition concerning the appointment against the post of Routine Clerk was advertised vide Advertisement No.21/1987. 6. We are afraid that in view of the categorical decision of the Supreme Court in the case noticed above, the Commission could not proceed further into the matter. 7. By no stretch of imagination, the conduct of the Bihar Public Service Commission can be said to be in breach or defiance of the order dated 11.2.1993. 8. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Ghanshyam Prasad, J. sunil