IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2328 of 2006 ASHWANI KUMAR CHAUDHARY, Chaukidar/Peon, Son of Balbhadra Chaudhary, resident of Village- Behta, P.O.- Dihadh, Via- Sonebarsha Raj, District- Saharsa, Peon, Building Division, Bhagalpur, Department of Public Works Department (P.W.D.), Bhagalpur, P.S.- Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur :--- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Building, South Bihar, Patna (Sri Deo Narain Prasad) 2. Superintending Engineer (Building) Bhawan, Anchal Bhawan Nirman Yewam Awas Bibhag, Bhagalpur, Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha. 3. Executive Engineer, Building Division, Bhagalpur, P.W.D. (Building), District- Bhagalpur, Sri Rajendra Prasad Saha. 4. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur Sri Bipin Kumar:------ Respondents/Opposite Parties/Contemnor. ----------- 9. 16.04.2009. . Petitioner is at Serial No.17 of the Panel but has not been given appointment on Class-IV post in the Building Division at Bhagalpur as he belongs to the general category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of Mangal Pandit as a Class-IV employee in the Extremely Backward Class Category in the said Building Division is contrary to the directions given by this Court under orders dated 16.12.2005 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 4179 of 2000 as also the order dated 4th January, 2008 passed in the instant contempt application as in the writ petition and the contempt application this Court directed the authorities to first notify the vacancies after declaring the post of those who are missing for more than seven years as vacant and thereafter to make appointment taking into account the seniority of the daily-wagers. 2. Counsel for the State, A.A.G.-3 with reference to the instructions of the Divisional Commissioner contained in Letter No. 501 dated 1.4.2008, Annexure-M to the Supplementary Show-cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 submitted that as per the vacancy positions indicated in Letter dated 1.4.2008, Annexure-M there was - 2 - only one vacancy in the general category against which a person senior to the petitioner in the panel was appointed and Mangal Pandit being the senior most amongst the Extremely Backward Class Category was appointed in that category. 3. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid letter dated 1.4.2008, Annexure-M submitted that as the vacancies were notified on 1.4.2008 the appointment of Mangal Pandit having been made on 5.12.2007 is contrary to the direction of this Court contained in the order passed in the writ case as also in the contempt petition. 4. Petitioner, if aggrieved by the appointment of Mangal Pandit in the Extremely Backward Class Category as contrary to the vacancy notified under letter dated 1.4.2008, is at liberty to challenge the same. While challenging the appointment of Mangal pandit he is also at liberty to challenge the number of the vacancy indicated in letter dated 1.4.2008, Annexure-M as according to him the number of the vacancy shown available in the general category as only one is not correct as according to him more than one vacancy are there in the general category from before. Such submission petitioner would be well advised to raise by filing a writ petition. 5. This contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)