IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2327 of 2006 DR.JAIDEO PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Anil Chandra, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Ghose, Additional Advocate General-II ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 18th August, 2008 The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 4th May, 2006 by the following order: “ In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid Full Bench decision and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 2. The petitioner, by means of this MJC application, has raised his grievance that the representation made by the petitioner on 16th May, 2006 has not been considered as directed in the order dated 4th May, 2006. 3. In response to the contempt application cause has been shown by opposite party no.3. In paragraphs 5 and 6 following 2 statements have been made. That it is submitted that the instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for willful disobedience of the order dated 4.5.2006 of the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 268 of 2004 by which the respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the full bench decision in L.P.A. no. 171 of 2003 and 616 of 2002 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. That it is submitted that the petitioner filed the petition alongwith a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the department of Health (M.E. and I.S.M.) Bihar, Patna. That the said petition was duly examined in the department and it was found that at present no person junior to the petitioner is working in A.N.M.C.H., Gaya and P.M.C.H., Patna. That it is submitted that the claim of the petitioner for being posted in aforesaid two colleges was not found acceptable and hence, the same was being rejected vide memo no. 967(17) dated 9.12.2006.” 4. In our considered view, the respondents did not, in any manner defy the order dated 4th May, 2006 which would necessitate any action against them under contempt jurisdiction. 5. MJC is, accordingly, disposed of. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil/