IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3138 of 2011 Bihar Agriculture Marketing Officers’ Association through its Executive member Ajit Kumar, Son of Shri Harendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Belwanwa, P.S. Motihari (T) District- East Champaran :---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Agriculture Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Sri B. Rajender, The Admministrator, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (dissolved), Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna :--- Contemnors…Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :- M/S B.K.Singh Chauhan, Braj Nandan Singh, Advocates. For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, A.C. to G.P. 23. ====== 5. 15.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 30.7.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16443 of 2001, Annexure-1 directing the Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (dissolved) (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) to consider the case of the members of the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Officers’ Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”) for promotion in the selection grade, time bound, the Administrator has passed reasoned order bearing Memo No. 2870 dated 7.11.2011 (Annexure-A to the show-cause) holding that promotion of the members of the Association in Junior/Senior Selection Grade is not possible as the Board having been dissolved it is not possible to identify the posts in the category of Junior/Senior Selection Grade. 2 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that order dated 7.11.2011 is contrary to the provisions of the Act by which the Board has been dissolved as the liabilities and assets of the Board having been transferred to the Government even after dissolution of the Board the promotions to the members of the Association in the Selection Grade is required to be given by identifying the post, as was done in the case of other officers under Office Order No. 913 dated 10.11.1989. Aforesaid order dated 10.11.1989 was passed much prior to the dissolution of the Board, as such, cannot be a ground to set aside the reasoned order dated 7.11.2011. Counsel for the petitioner then relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J. Vasudevan, reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 619 and submitted that the rights and obligation of the members of the petitioner Association is required to be considered under the 1960 Act and not under the Act repealing the same. 4. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner cannot be a ground to set aside the reasoned order dated 7.11.2011 in the contempt proceeding. In the circumstances, I do not see any merit in the contempt petition, which is, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)