IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1524 of 2007 1. Randhir Prasad Singh, son of late Nageshwar Pd. Singh, resident of village & P.O. Laharua, P.S. Tribeniganj, Distt. Supaul 2. Sachidanand Singh, son of late Bishundeo Singh, at & P.O. Manda, P.S. Bebhutipur, Distt- Samastipur 3. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Amir Sahni, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Mr. Navin Kumar, Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Gobind Narayan Akhori, Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh For the State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, GA 10 & Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju, AC to GA 10 For B.P.S.C. : M/S Kaushal Kumar Jha and Amish Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 7. 30.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). The petitioners claim violation of the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by this Court by which this Court had directed the State-respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners and other eligible candidates for the post of Assistant in the Secretariat and attached offices within two months from the date of the order. These two petitioners were also intervenors in the said writ petition. 2 In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State and the BPSC, it is stated that when the Department started taking steps to comply with the direction of this Court, it was found that several of the candidates have instead of mentioning their date of first joining in Class III post had mentioned their dates of initial entry in service in Class IV post including these two petitioners. Accordingly, notices were issued to them. For the said purpose the Department had, in fact, appointed a Committee to go into and examine the case of each of the candidates and the Committee had accordingly made its recommendations with respect to these two petitioners and ten others who were found by the Committee that they had wrongly given their date of joining of Class IV post. The petitioner no. 1 was found to have actually joined the ministerial service on 23.1.1978 whereas he has given different date of said joining as 9.4.1973 which was in fact his date of joining on class IV post. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2, Sachidanand Singh had joined ministerial service on 1.11.1978 whereas he had given his date of first joining in ministerial post as 18.8.1970 which was in fact the date of 3 joining in Class IV post. For the said reasons their matter along with those of ten similarly situated persons was referred to the BPSC for re-examining their cases and placing them in the correct position in the select list as also for making appropriate recommendations. The BPSC at its meeting held on 18.2.2010 examined the matter and thereafter found that both the petitioners, who were earlier placed at Sl. Nos. 76 and 16 respectively in the list of recommended candidates, had gone outside the area of recommendation and accordingly they have not been recommended. For the said reason, it is submitted that they are not fit to be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to counter the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the opposite parties except to state that the petitioners’ applications had been duly verified by the departmental authorities and thus they should not be held liable for the same. This Court is of the view that it is the petitioners who were at fault by giving wrong date of entry in the ministerial post showing their entry in the class IV post which fact they have admitted in their letters to the 4 State-authorities which have been annexed as Annexures B/1 and C/1 respectively to the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1, the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is clearly the fault of these petitioners in giving wrong date of entry in service in ministerial cadre and they cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court is made out against the opposite parties. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)