IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.879 of 2008 1. SUSHIL KUMAR, son of Shri Keshav Prasad Singh, resident of Sadhu Chawk, Sareya, Ward No.3, Gopalganj, P.O., P.S. & District Gopalganj 2. Ram Awadesh Singh, son of late Ramasish Singh, resident of village Masan, Thana, P.O. Yadopur Dukhharan, P.S. Yadopur, District Gopalganj 3. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, son of Shri Swami Nath Tiwary, resident of village Tiway Matihiniya, P.O. Sipaya, P.S. Bisambharpur, District Gopalganj 4. Mritunjay Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Dadan Pandey, resident of village & P.O. Karwathi Bazar, P.S. Gopalpur, District Gopalganj 5. Shankar Pandey, son of Sri Parsuram Pandey, resident of village & P.O. Dumariya, P.S. Manjha Garh, District Gopalganj 6. Jaleshwar Prasad, son of late Sheo Mangal Prasad, resident of village Allapur, P.O. & P.S. Manjha Garh, District Gopalganj 7. Shail Kumari, wife of Narayan Prasad Singh, resident of village & P.O. Rewtith, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Gopalganj 8. Majhar Hussain Ansari, son of Pan Mohammad Mian, resident of village & P.O. Sher, P.S. Sidhwalia, District Gopalganj 9. Priti Devi, W/o Shri Sashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, resident of village & P.O. Rewtith, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Gopalganj 10. Puspa Kumari, D/o Ramanand Nath Tiwary, resident of Chitra Kut Nagar, Road No.3, P.O. Digha, P.S. Danapur, District Patna 11. Surendra Kumar Singh, S/o Banarash Singh, resident of village & P.O. Rampur Daud, P.S. Kuchaikot, District Gopalganj 12. Santosh Kumar Upadhayaya, Son of Radha Krishna Upadhayaya, Resident of village & P.O. Dewapur, P.S. Barauli, District Gopalganj 13. Puspa Kumari, D/o Shri Raghu Naah Ojha, resident of village & P.O. Koiny, P.S. Manjhagarh, District Gopalganj 14. Arbind Kumar Sigh, Son of Daroga Singh, resident of village Chainpati, P.S. & P.O. and District Gopalganj 2 15. Sri Bhagwan Prasad Mahto, son of Shri Nagina Mohto, resident of village & P.O. Bishunpura Bazar, P.S. Sidhwalia, District Gopalganj … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anjani Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Primary, Secondary and Mass Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Ashok Kumar Singh, Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New secretariat, Patna … Contemnors/ Opp.Parties. ----------- 2. 8.4.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners in this application have complained violated of the order of this Court dated 1.7.2004 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 13246/2003. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the directions given by this Court in the order of the Division Bench have not been strictly followed by the opposite parties. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners it would be useful to quote the operative portion contending the directions of the Division Bench, which reads as follows: “ Taking all the circumstances into account inasmuch as the Court would collect information and having considered every factor of which the Court was intimated and 3 with the reservation that this is based on the data which was supplied on record and as much as the Court could gather from other official sources, than the Education Department, whose Secretary was uncooperative throughout, the Court is of the view that the following relief and orders be passed: (a) The respondents shall follow the judgment and direction as was given by the Supreme Court in re Ram Vijay Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & ors. (supra) and the judgment of the High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court in re. Vinod Kumar & ors. vs. The State of Bihar & ors. (supra). (b) The advertisement issued by the State of Bihar dated 10 December, 2003 annexure 1 to CWJC No. 13246 of 2003 for recruitment of teachers is quashed. (c) The Bihar Elementary/ Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 are quashed. (d) All the trained teachers available are to be reckoned and considered for recruitment, by selection or otherwise, to teach elementary school, even taking into account the relaxation of age. (e) The concessions granted by the 4 National Council for Teachers’ Education as a generality are quashed. The concessions may be considered upon application by the institutions concerned and/or for specific teachers on a case to case basis whether considering the inadequacies of facilities in an institution or lack of qualifications of a teacher who may be put into in service training. (f) The State Government may now proceed by taking into account the totality of the circumstances and after having reckoned the availability of trained teachers, consider the recruitment of untrained teachers who will be given in in-service training should the occasion so arise. (g) All applicants who applied in response to the advertisement dated 10 December, 2003, which stands quashed, the application and consequential monetary deposits shall stand transferred to the Bihar Public Service Commission, and the latter shall proceed with the recruitment of teachers as indicated by the Supreme Court judgment (supra) and by updating the statistical data required for recruitment 5 of teachers, and these inputs be reflected in the advertisement which may now be issued, with the sole criteria in mind that the public plan for elementary education must be executed forthwith. (h) In the interests of public, for the execution of a public plan to eradicate illiteracy, and the larger interests of children in the State, the plan for basic and primary education be implemented forthwith and without delay. If the circumstances and the exigencies so require that the process of recruitment, selection of teachers or the shortfall be made up by teachers who will be given in-service training, the plan should be given a kick start by considering the service of retired teachers who will make the position of elementary school teachers until the full strength of teachers is available when the recruitment process is finalized. (i) While making recruitment of teachers, whether trained or untrained being put into in service training, the State Government will keep in mind the Bihar Education Code, particularly chapters 6 and 7 in the Bihar Education 6 Code have been conveniently forgotten and the Code consigned to the godown.” This Court from the pleadings in the contempt application as also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to understand as to which part of the order has been violated. There is no single sentence given in the contempt application which would reflect disobedience on the part of the opposite parties. That apart learned counsel for the State informs that the matter was thereafter is taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court by an order dated 19th March, 2007 had found that the opposite parties have not committed any contempt and accordingly, the matter was disposed of by an order dated 19th March, 2007. That being so, when there is absolutely want of any specific instance to constitute contempt on the part of the opposite parties, this Court would hold that there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, the prayer for initiating proceeding of contempt for violation 7 of the order of this Court is rejected and the contempt proceeding is dropped. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/