IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.5088 of 2010 Rubi Kumari Mishra @ Rubi Mishra . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. . ----------- 5. 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was at serial no. 1 of the merit panel for appointment as Panchayat Law Secretary. The Court on 14.12.2009 directed consideration of her claim for appointment in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The petitioner submitted the order of the Court before the authorities on 8.4.2010. There is no explanation in the contempt application for the delay in the submission of the order before the authorities. The Opposite Party No. 1 has passed an order on 25.6.2011 annulling the appointment of the person at serial no. 2 of the panel but declining relief to the petitioner on the ground that the tenure of the Gram Kutchary had expired. Section 92 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act provides for a five year term of the Gram Kutchary. Rule 8(2) of the Bihar Gram Kutchary Sachiv (appointment, service conditions and duties) Rules, 2 2007 provides that the appointment of the Gram Kutchary Sachiv on contract shall be co- terminous with the life of the Gram Kutchary. But, till fresh appointments are made in the newly constituted Gram Kutchary, the erstwhile appointee shall continue as a working arrangement. It is not in controversy between the parties that the Gram Kutchary in question was constituted in the year 2006, though the exact date has not been pointed out by both sides. The tenure therefore was till 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after submission of the representation on 8.4.2010, the tenure of the Gram Kutchary was still subsisting and therefore the opposite parties were required to consider her case for appointment. By delay in decision making process they have allowed the term of the Gram Kutchary to lapse. It cannot be a defence by them in a contempt proceeding for a violation which stood completed during the term of the Gram Kutchary. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner must also bear a part of the blame as no justification has been pointed out for delayed submission of the order of the Court. 3 Both sides have not placed proper materials before the Court of the date for the constitution of the Gram Kutchary. The Court shall proceed on the premise that the Gram Kutchary in question lost its statutory existence in January, 2011. It was for the petitioner to be more cautious and vigilant of his rights by approaching the authority for implementation in time. If despite having an advantageous order from the Court, he slept over the matter and allowed valuable time to slip away, she cannot ignore her own deficiencies and put the entire blame on the opposite parties alone for non compliance. In a contempt proceeding, the matter rests with the satisfaction of the Court whether its order had been flouted or not. If the party alleging disobedience was itself partially responsible and a contributory factor permitting precious time to lapse, leading to a complete change in circumstances for statutory reasons, the Court finds it difficult to proceed against the opposite parties in the contempt jurisdiction. The contempt application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)