IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1057 of 2009 1. MD.SHAHID ANWAR son of Khurshid Anwar, resident of Urdu Bazar Bhagalpur, P. S. Tatarpur, District Bhagalpur. 2. Shekhu Rahman son of Late Md. Yasin Bari, resident of Mohalla Khagaul, P. S. Khagaul, District Patna. 3. Shameena Khatoon, daughter of Abdul Quyum, resident of village Barharia Siwan, P. S. Barharia, District Siwan. 4. Sharfraz Ahmad, son of Abulais, resident of village and P. O. Telpur, via Harinagar, P.S. Lauriya, District West Champaran. 5. Md. Maksood Alam, Son of Shoukat Hussain, resident of village Keshwar Narayanpur, P.O. Patory, District Samastipur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. SRI B.N.PANDEY , the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 2. Sri V. N. Singh, the Officer on Special Duty, Technical, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3. Sri Ramni Kant, the Controller of Examiner, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 4. Sri Dr. D. K. Yadav, the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 5. Sri P. K. Azad, the Director, Maulana Azad College of Engineering & Technology, Patna. 6. State of Bihar. … Opp. Parties. ----------- 4. 29.07.2009. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. From the perusal of the show-cause reply filed by opposite parties it would become clear that there was no deliberate intention to flout the order of this Court and when the examination of third years was held from 19th March 2009, the petitioners’ result was declared three days prior to it 2 and that of the first year and second year could not have literally made them to appear in the examination. The order of this Court was only confined to declaration of result and to take steps for holding the examination of part III. There is no dispute that the result was declared on 16th March 2009 and only thereafter the examination of the 3rd year was held from 19th March 2009. There was thus no violation of the order of this Court. It would be, however, a different thing altogether as to whether the petitioners could appear in the said examination and at least such allegation cannot be made the scope of a contempt application. For that purpose the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the authorities who are always expected to act in accordance with law in terms of the relevant statute including the Examination Regulations. The apprehension of the petitioners therefore at this stage that they would loose a year or their batch of 3 2004, seems to be both premature and misconceived as the same is yet to be looked into by the concerned authorities. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)