IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2400 of 2006 BIRENDRA PRASAD MEHTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8. 05.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opposite parties. On the own showing of the petitioner from the pleadings in the writ application, it is apparent that his appointment itself was not in accordance with the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to interfere in its contempt jurisdiction. It is to be noted that it is the case of the petitioner himself that he was appointed as an aspirant peon “Umidwar Anusewak”, the terminology unknown in service jurisprudence and the law of appointment. The application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)