IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1121 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS…………. PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS………….. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 4 3-11-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition was disposed of with certain observation vide order contained in annexure-1. Under that order petitioners’ claims were considered by Samastipur Collectorate for empanelment for Class- IV posts in accordance with the policy decision of the Government. Petitioners are aggrieved because they have not been included in the recent panel. In the show cause filed on behalf of respondent no.3, Collector, Samastipur there is an averment that petitioners name were in the panel of the year 1994 but while revising and preparing the fresh panel only those candidates have been included who have completed the required working days and petitioners have not been included because they absented themselves from their work. It has been further stated that petitioners did not turn up for work since 1994 and hence only those candidates have been empanelled in the list who were regular in their duty. On behalf of petitioners the stand of the opposite parties has been assailed on facts as well as on legal issue. However, in contempt jurisdiction it is not proper to go into such issue. It is clear from the averments in the show cause that claims of the petitioners were considered but not allowed and they were not included in the recent panel. 2 In support of stand of the opposite parties learned counsel for the State produced before this court copy of letter dated 4th July, 1996 and judgment of this court dated 22-8-1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 222 of 1995 which are mentioned in paragraph-4 of the show cause. According to the aforesaid judgment inclusion of old candidates in the new panel is not an automatic incident but required consideration on merits. In the facts of the case it is not possible to hold that the opposite parties have committed contempt of this court, hence this contempt application is dismissed. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the action of the opposite parties or with the policy followed by them, then they will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)