IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2640 of 2006 MURARI PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG I ------ P R E S E N T Hon’ble the Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 24th July, 2008 On 13th January, 2006 the writ petition filed by the petitioners came to disposed of. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “In those circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Samastipur to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to supply those vacancies. The District Magistrate is directed to ensure that those vacancies are supplied within a period of 9 months from today.” 2. By this contempt petition the grievance is that the District Magistrate has not supplied the vacancies within nine months as per the order dated 13th January, 2006. Opposite party no. 2 has responded to this contempt petition and shown cause - 2 - Paragraphs 7 to 10 read thus: “7. That the Hon’ble Court has directed the opposite party, District Magistrate, Samastipur, in the order passed in C.W.J.C. No.4732/2000 on 13.01.2006 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to supply the vacancies of V.L.W./V.E.W. within a period of nine months from the passing of the order. In compliance of the said order an advertisement No. 02/2006 was issued in the light of the Agriculture Directorate Letter No.1286 dated 17.04.06 and the same was forwarded to the Information and public Relation Department vide letter No.668/Estb. Dated 14.7.2006 for publication in the news papers. It was then published in the news papers on 29.07.2006, wherein applications were invited by 10.08.2006 from those, having requisite qualification to fill up the vacancies of VLW/VEW. However, the last date for submitting the applications was later extended upto 25.08.2006. This was also published in the news papers. 8. That it is stated that while applications were still being received, this office got the copy of letter No.6864 dated 14.07.2006 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and addressed to the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. It revealed that the directions given to the District Magistrates by the Director, Agriculture, in his letter No.1286 dated 17.04.2006 is at variance to the provisions of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act,2002 ( Bihar Act 7 of 2002). It held that since the Staff Selection Commission has been constituted under the Act, the provisions laid down in Section 5 of the Act, demanding recommendation of the commission in cases of appointments to the General/Technical/Non-Technical posts having pay scales below that of Rs. 6500-10500/- has an over riding effect over the provisions made in any cadre rule. As such, with the enforcement of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act, the provisions of VLW/VEW Appointment Rules, 1987, will be deemed to be superseded. Accordingly Agriculture Production Commissioner, Bihar was requested to issue necessary order for cancellation of the said letter No. 1286 of 17.04.2006. - 3 - 9. That it is further stated and submitted that on receipt of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department’s said letter the opposite party No.2 District Magistrate, Samastipur, sought for directions from the Agriculture Department vide letter No.816 dated 17.08.2006 with regard to further action required to be taken for disposal of applications received in accordance with the above mentioned advertisement. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. A reminder under letter No.1105 dated 3.10.2006 was also issued. Thereupon this office received a copy of letter No. 10707 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 23.10.2006. It revealed that in consequence of the enactment of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act,2002 , the Selection committee constituted under the VLW/VEW Appointment Rules, 1987 will be deemed to be superseded and any appointment made by such committee would be illegal. It is also referred to the advice given by the Personnel and Administrative Department to the Agriculture Department to amend the Rules. This office later on received a letter from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department bearing letter No.3210 dated 15.11.2006 directing to act in accordance with the direction laid down in the above mentioned letter No. 10707 dated 23.10.2006. 10. That it is also relevant to mention here that on account of the supersession of the provisions of the VLW/VEW Appointment and Service Condition Rules, 1987 by the provisions laid down in section 5 of the Staff Selection Commission Act, 2002, no further action could be taken under the said Rules by this office to dispose off the applications received after publication of advertisement, as it would be illegal.” 3. Having considered the cause shown by the Opposite party no. 2 we are satisfied that the opposite parties cannot be held guilty for defiance and willful disobedience of the order of - 4 - this court. There is genuine controversy with regard to the exact import and impact of the Rules, 1987 after coming into force of Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act, 2002. 4. M.J.C. stands disposed of accordingly. Anil/ R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J.