IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1859 of 2007 SHEO CHANDAR RAI (Roll No. 542536), son of Monah Lal Rai, R/O-Village- Rahimpur Rudauli, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur….petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Sri Amir Subhani, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-1. 2. N. Srinivasan, Former District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. Lalan Singh, present District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, namely govind narayan Akhori, 15 Bailey Road, Patna-1. …….Opp. Parties. ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Senior Advocate Dr. Vidya Nand Kumar, Advocate For State:- Mr. S.S. Mishra, AC to GA-5 For BPSC:- Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate ------------- 3. 3-Feb-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Commission. 2. From Annexure-7 to the contempt application it appears that on 28.9.2006 an order appointing the petitioner on a Class-III post was issued by the District Magistrate, Vaishali pursuant to order of the writ Court contained in Annexure-1. By Annexure-8, petitioner drew the attention of the District Magistrate that the appointment letter wrongly mentioned in Clause-2 that the appointment was purely provisional and no such condition should have been mentioned in the appointment letter when it was on the basis of examination and selection through the Commission. 2 3. In reply to Annexure-8 dated 14.10.2006, the District Magistrate, Vaishali vide Annexure-9 dated 2nd March, 2007 intimated the petitioner that in order to obtain appointment on the post in question he was required to submit his joining within fifteen days otherwise his appointment shall stand cancelled. It is not clear whether the petitioner has joined thereafter or not. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the matter in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. If any of the terms of appointment offered to the petitioner are not in accordance with law or discriminatory, the same can be subject matter of another appropriate litigation. 5. With this clarification, the contempt application is disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)