IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2412 of 2008 VIRENDRA KUMAR, S/O SHIV NARAIN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 401, BLOCK-C, NARAYAN CITY APARTMENT, SHEIKHPURA, P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, PATNA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI UDAY NARAYAN CHAUDHARY, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SPEAKER, BIHAR VIDHAN SABHA, PATNA-800001. 3. SHRI SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, BIHAR VIDHAN SABHA, PATNA-800001. 4. SHRI PARMANAND JHA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPUTY SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT), BIHAR VIDHAN SABHA, PATNA-800001. 5. REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. 6. SHRI BRAJ KISHORE SINGH PRABHAT S/O LATE JUGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY TO THE SPEAKER, BIHAR VIDHAN SABHA, PATNA-800001. --- CONTEMNOR-OPPOSITE PARTIES. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. VINAY KRISHNA TRIPATHY, ADVOCATE. FOR THE STATE : MR. RAY SHIVAJINATH, A.A.G.-4 SR. ADVOCATE. FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4 : MR. DEVENDRA KUMAR SINHA, SR. ADVOCATE. FOR RESPONDENT NO.6 : MR. SHASHI ANUGRAH NARAIN, SR. ADVOCATE. FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 : MR. AMISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE. ----------- 10. 23.02.2010 This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been filed by the appellant of L.P.A.No. 1170 of 2005 (Virendra Kumar Vrs. The Bihar Vidhan Sabha and others), for alleged disobedience of the order dated 11.01.2008 ( Annexure-1), whereby appointment of respondent no.6 ( Bablu Kumar), and respondent no.7 ( Sanjeev Kumar) therein, were declared to be invalid, and the rest of the selection process was upheld. It was further directed that respondent nos. 2 to 4 shall reconsider the 2 appellant’s case and other eligible candidates for appointment based on the performance both on Hindi and English Shorthand dictation and transcription, provided the respondent authorities to consider the need for appointment of English reporter. This was followed by a review application at the instance of the present petitioner which was disposed of by order dated 07.05.2008 (Annexure-3), passed in M.J.C.No. 794 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar Versus Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna & Ors.). The operative portion of the order is reproduced herein below: “2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The order is quite clear and does not need any modification. It is clarified that the reconsideration shall not be confined to “English Reporters”, and the candidate shall be reconsidered for appointment as “Reporters” in terms of the advertisement.” Respondent nos. 2 to 4 reconsidered the matter in the light of two orders of this Court, and have not appointed the petitioner as an English reporter. Hence the present application. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the entire working of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha including its proceedings in the House are in Hindi. Therefore, the authorities have not felt the need to appoint an English reporter. We are mindful of the position that the petitioner has fared well in English Short hand dictation and transcription, but has not fared equally well in Hindi. The Petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that, in view of the terms of the advertisement, the 3 authorities were obliged to appoint an English stenographer. We regret our inability to accede to the submission for the reason that the needs of an office are entirely administrative and executive function which has to be determined by the authorities themselves. Any direction to the contrary, excepting cases of discrimination or like, may be tantamount to creation of new post for which the need may not be in the department. It has also the potential of interference with the Budget which is the exclusive prerogative of the Government in office. The position in the present case may have been different, had the petitioner brought to our notice a situation where an English Stenographer with inferior qualification than the petitioner was appointed. No such case of discrimination has been made out. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. We do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly rejected. Sym (S.K.Katriar,J) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)