IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4270 of 2009 Anand Kumar Mishra Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. ----------- 5/ 20/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The directions in the writ application preferred by Dalpatis was to consider for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevaks. Relying on certain other orders of this Court that the respondents had fixed a cut-off date for consideration the writ application was disposed with directions to consider the case for appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that the case of the petitioner has been considered. He submits that an unnecessary controversy is now sought to be created with regard to availability of vacancies when the District Magistrate, Bhojpur as recently as 20.11.2008 has opined that vacancies do exist. Learned counsel for the State submits that the issue of appointment from Dalpatis to Panchayat Sevaks, the annulment of the designation of Panchayat Sevaks replaced by Panchayat Sachivs have all been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. 2 No.789/06. The relief has been moulded as confined to 531 persons only based on the criteria as discussed in the Division Bench judgement. The direction in the writ petition was to consider for appointment. That consideration has been done is not in dispute. Any further enquiry with regard to availability/non-availability of vacancies including any directions in L.P.A. No.789/06 restricting consideration to 531 persons on the criteria fixed therein, the replacement of the nomenclature of Panchayat Sevaks by Panchayat Sachivs are matters which cannot be examined and enquired in the contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner is so aggrieved, the remedy for him lies in a fresh writ application only. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)