IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2804 of 2010 Gupteshwar Mishra & Ors. . Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. . ----------- 4. 06.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite parties. The contention of the opposite parties is that after consideration by the Selection Committee petitioner nos. 1 to 4 have been appointed and petitioner no. 5 was found to be wanting in height and therefore he has not been appointed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were required to be considered for regularization and not appointment. A fresh appointment of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 is therefore not sustainable. Treating petitioner no. 5 as a fresh applicant and subjecting him to fresh measurement of height is also not in consonance with law as the direction was to consider him for regularization and not appointment. Only for the reason of the limits of the contempt jurisdiction, the Court is inhibited from proceeding on that aspect of the matter. If so advised, the petitioners may pursue their remedies in a fresh writ application. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)