IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.615 of 2010 1. PAWANDEO KUMAR S/O SRI JAGDISH MAHTO R/O VILL.- BISHUNPURA, P.S.- PIPRA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI), AT PRESENT WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR (WELDING) ON DAILY WAGES BASIS, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR 2. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI LAXMAN BHAGAT R/O MOHALLA- LAXMI CHOWK, BRAHMAPURA, P.O.- M.I.T., P.S.- BRAHMAPURA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR (CARPENTRY) ON DAILY WAGES BASIS, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR 3. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI BHUNESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SALUGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS CLERK ON DAILY WAGES BASIS IN THE OFFICE OF MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR- -----PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. AJAY KUMAR, I.A.S., SECRETARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DR. D. PRASAD, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DR. P. JAKHARWAL, PRINCIPAL, MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR------------------------------------OPP.PARTIES ----------- For the petitioners :M/S Shyama Prasad Mukherjee,Sr.Advocate Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the State :M/S Sheojee Prasad, G.P.2 P.Bharti, A.C. to G.P.2 ------ 4. 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The present contempt application has been filed for initiating proceeding of contempt against opposite party No.3, the Director, Science and Technology, Bihar for willfully and deliberately swearing false affidavit by filing supplementary show cause in the connected MJC No.3013 2 of 2007 stating that the Principal of the college is not competent authority for making any type of appointment in case of the petitioners and others. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their stand has sought to rely upon a Circular No.539 dated 6.2.1964 issued by the Department of Industries and Mines, Technical Education, Government of Bihar under which power have been delegated to the Principal of MIT, Muzaffarpur, among others, for the purpose of fixing wages and making appointment of daily rated workers which was mentioned as full powers subject to the marked conditions but not exceeding Rs.2.50 per day in the case of unskilled labourers and Rs.5/- per day in the case of skilled workers and semi-skilled workers and further subject to the condition of the expenditure being made out of the existing budget allotment. It is submitted that in view of the said Circular of 1964 the statement made by the Director in his supplementary show cause filed in the earlier contempt application is a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court by making false statement. 3 Various show causes have been filed on behalf of the opposite party. Apart from others, reliance is placed on a letter dated 18.9.1973 issued by the Industries and Technical Department, Government of Bihar in which reference is made to the power of appointment of the Director, Technical Education, Bihar with respect to all non-gazetted posts under the administrative control of the Director. The opposite party also relies upon a letter dated 20.9.1995 by the Director, Science and Technology Department, Bihar which is addressed to, among others, all Principals/Directors of Engineering Colleges in which it is stated that the competent appointing authority of the non- gazetted employees and daily rated workers is the Director, Science and Technology and since 1985 the Personnel Department had put a stop upon appointing daily rated employees yet such illegal appointments are being made by them and, accordingly, they were directed not to make such appointments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing has been brought on the record to show that such powers have been taken away from the Principal. Even if the said submission is accepted, in view of the letters dated 4 18.9.1973 and specially the letter dated 20.9.1995 it is evident that no deliberate attempt has been made to mislead the Court by filing false statement in the earlier contempt application by stating that the Principals did not have any power of appointment. In that view of the matter, the contempt application is not fit to be proceeded with. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/