IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1769 of 2008 1.UMA SHANKAR PANDEY S/O Sri Ram Naresh Pandey, resident of village Bartabha, P.s. and Dist. Lakhisarai. 2.Dinesh Paswan s/o Shri Karu Paswan, Khagaul, Kiul, Dist Lakhisarai. 3.Md. Akbar, S/o Md. Khudabaksh Khan resident of vill+P.O. Garhi bishanpur, Dist. Lakhisarai. 4.Rajeev Kumar Suman s/o Sri Krishna Mohan Maharaj, resident of village Jakarpura, P.S. surajgarh, Dist. Lakhisarai. 5.Ram Narayan Paswan s/o Sri Chandrashekhar Das villa Nawtoliya, Dist. Munger. 6.Sudhir Rawat, s/o Shri Yogendra Rawat, vill Punjabi mohalla Lakhisarai P.S. Lakhisari, Dist. Lakhisarai. 7.Bibhash kumar s/o Shri Anirudh Pd. Singh, Kiul Basti, Pachna Road, p.S. Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 8.Md. Jamal s/o md. Sekh Rashid, Berauri, p.S. Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 9.Birendra Prasad s/o Jharu Mahto, village mohanpur, P.S. Halsi, Dist. Lakhisarai. 10.Sanjay Kumar s/o Sri Baldeo Yadav vill Damodarpur, P.S. lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 11.Chandradeo Mandal s/o Dukhi mandal, vill kiul P.S. Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 12.Ajay Kumar S/o Shri sheonandan Prasad vill banpur, Nagarnausa, p.S. nalanda Dist. Nalanda. 13.Sanjay Kumar Sinha s/o Devendra Kumar Sinha, village Rajauna P.S. & Dist. Nalanda. 14.Wakil Kumar s/o Sri Palakdhari Yadav, Garhibishanpur, Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 15.Ramjugut Paswan s/o Bisho Paswan, vill khushaltola, P.S. & Dist. Lakhisarai. 16.Ravindra Kumar s/o Sri Birendra Das, vill+P.O. Mahisona, Dist. Lakhisazrai. 17.Ramashankar pandey s/o Sri Ramnaresh pandey, vill bartara P.O. Sarma, P.S. Ramgarh Chowk, Dist. Lakhisarai. 18.Mahendra Das s/o Shri Saryug Das, vill+P.O. Mahisona, P.S. & Dist. Lakhisarai. 19.Surendra kumar s/o Sri birendra Das, vill+P.O. Mahisona, P.S. & Dist. Lakhisarai. 20.Sujeet Kumar s/o Sri Saryug Das vill+P.O. Mahisona, P.S. & Dist Lakhisari. 2 21.Bundi Prasad Yadaqv s/o Sri Gore Lal Yadav, vill +P.O.Damodarpur, Dist. Lakhisarai. 22.Baban Kumar Paswan s/o Lal Bahadur Paswan, vill+P.O. Damodarpur Dist. Lakhisarai. 23.Raj Kumar s/o Sri Baldeo pd. Yadav, vill Damodarpur, P.O.Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai. 24.Radha Devi s/o Late Bhagirath Pd. Singh, vill shobhni, P.S. surjgtarh, Dist lakhisarai. 25.Bambam Yadav s/o Parmeshwar Yadav, vill Damoodarpur P.O.Damodarpur, Dist. Lakhisarai. 26.Jai Shankar Pandey s/o Sri Ram Naresh Pandey, vill Bartara, P.O. sarma Ramgarh chowk, Lakhisarai Dist. Lakhisarai. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Shri Narsingh Upadhyay, Ex District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. At present posted at Secretariat patna. 3.Shri pran Mohan Thakur, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. ----------- 9 31/3/2010 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Mr. Singh would submit that the opposite parties have willfully violated the order of this Court dated 27.2.2007 in M.J.C. No.1166 of 2006. In order to appreciate the said submission it would be necessary to first trace out the history as to how M.J.C. No. 1166 of 2006 actually came into existence. From the records of this case it is clear that earlier a writ application was filed by the petitioners being C.W.J.C. No.7878 of 2005, wherein this Court so far it relates to the petitioners had given the following directions:- “The District Magistrate is directed to obtain the sanction of the Divisional Commissioner as well as the financial sanction within a period of three months and to ensure appointment to the vacant posts in accordance with law from the panel as quickly as possible thereafter------.” 3 Thereafter it appears that some new advertisement was made for the purpose of making a new panel. The petitioners finding that such effort of the District Magistrate was some how aimed to circumvent the earlier order, had filed M.J.C. No. 1166 of 2006, wherein this Court, after noting the submission of counsel for the petitioner had passed the following order:- “The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that three months has lapsed but nothing has been mentioned in the further show cause as to within which time the appointments will be given. Inasmuch as the confusion has very recently been settled. It is hoped and expected that within three months time, as was originally given, the appointments shall be given and accordingly, the matter stands disposed of.” From reading of the two orders it cannot be said that this Court had given approval of any panel muchless the panel being claimed by the petitioner. It can also not be said that this Court had also given any direction for appointment of the petitioners rather such direction was confined for making appointment from the existing panel. This aspect of the matter stands fully explained in various paragraphs of the show cause reply of the opposite parties wherein it has been stated as follows:- “18.That it is not cut of contents to mention here that altogether 2365 candidates had applied in pursuant to said advertisement No.01/02. It Panel was prepared in accordance with merit. There were only 29 vacancies out of said 29 vacancies 28 candidates has been appointed on the Class IV post in the District of Lakhisarai Collectorat according to category wise in the light of roster cleared by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger. As per unanimous decision of the committee candidates numbering seven time against existing were called for Cycle riding test in accordance with merit. 4 19.That it is humbly stated that one post is still vacant for disable person for appointment after approval of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Govt. of Bihar appointment will be made on the said post. This fact has already been stated in paragraph no.5 page 2 of the Annexure-B from the show cause. 20.That it is humbly stated that petitioners did not complete with successful employees and so called not be appointment on the said post. But appointment has been completed which is much earlier, unanimous transparent and accordance with merit.’ In the opinion of this Court, once Collector of the district has taken a clear cut stand that the vacancies from the panel were filled up and only one post of physically handicapped person had remained there for its being filled up, the petitioners not being in the panel can not claim the aforesaid post of handicapped person, and thus there would be no scope for this Court to initiate a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties on the ground of the petitioners being not appointed. Mr. Singh, however, has submitted that there was another panel in which name of the petitioners had figured and for that purpose he has relied upon Annexure-2. In the opinion of this Court Annexure-2 is not a panel in terms of the advertisement and in fact its authenticity itself is doubtful inasmuch as it merely contains names of 28 persons showing to be posted in different places. Such compilation of names that too without signature of any authority cannot be treated as a panel in Annexure-2 from which the petitioners could have been appointed. It is a matter of record that more than 2000 applications were received and thus 5 there could not have been a panel of only 28 persons in which the petitioners also have been shown to be working in their respective offices. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the opposite parties have complied order of this Court and accordingly, this contempt application being misconceived is hereby dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)