IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3028 of 2007 Rakesh Prasad Verma, son of Shri Kanhaiya Prasad Verma, resident of village Bhopatpura, P.S. Mairwa, Dist. Siwan Versus 1. Shri Anirudh Mishra, The Director (Indigenous), Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Shri Shyam Sundar Singh, The Deputy Director (Homeopathic), Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Shri Indu Bhushan Gupta, District Indigenous, Medical Officer, District Combined Hospital, Siwan 4. Shri Krishan Balav Singh, The Section Officer, Indigenous Medicine Section, Department of Health, Medical Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Shri Pramod Chand Pathak, The Office Assistant (Dealing Assistant concerned), Indigenous Medicine Section, Department of Health, Medical Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. The State of Bihar. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shree Niwash Singh, Advocate For the State: M/S Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 15 and Sita Ram Yadav, AC to SC 15. 6. 18.08.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner complains that the opposite parties have not complied with the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 3311/2000. By the said order this Court had directed the Director (Indigenous), Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of Annexure-9 (memo no. 496 dated 5.7.1993) and in case he would be satisfied that petitioner’s appointment was found to be valid by the Deputy Secretary-cum-Director, Indigenous Medicines, as referred to in the said Annexure-9, he shall direct for appointment of the petitioner with retrospective effect and to pay him the remunerations admissible in law right from the date of his 2 appointment. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 it is stated that by a reasoned order contained in memo no. 760 dated 29.7.2006 the Director (Indigenous Medicine), Bihar has passed a reasoned order in the light of the order under contempt of this Court and after considering all aspects of the matter he has come to a conclusion that the validly of the order contained in memo no. 496 dated 5.7.1993 cannot be accepted and on the basis of the same the appointment of the petitioner is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director has not properly considered the matter in the light of the order under contempt and on an examination of the materials on the record, including the report of Madan Prasad. He makes other submissions also in support of his case. Such issues cannot be considered under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. They are matters which can be considered in other properly constituted proceedings. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2006 he may take appropriate proceedings against the said order. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)