9/ 19th April 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3171 of 2009 1. RADHESHYAM DUBEY S/O SRI RAMBARAI DUBEY VILL., P.O. AND GRAM PANCHAYAT - KHIRI, P.S. AND BLOCK - RAJPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR…………………………………………....Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. DEEPAK PRASAD, THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATIRAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. BAIDHNATH PRASAD, THE DIRECTOR THE DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. SRI S.M. RAJU, THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. AJAY YADAV, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR 6. SRI KALANATH JHA, DISTRICT PANCHAYATI RAJ OFFICER BUXAR…………………….….Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG-XIV Mr. Ritesh Kumar No.1, Adv. ----------- This contempt application arises out of an order whereby the case of the petitioner was to be considered while filling up vacancy on the post of Panchayat Sevak from the category of eligible Dalpati of the Panchayat. 2. The order of the writ Court dated 1.03.2005 shows that the petitioner along with some others had moved the writ Court raising a grievance against excess reservation in favour of other categories compared to post in the general 2 category. The writ application was allowed and the respondents were directed to work out the fresh vacancy position with regard to 22 vacancies and then proceed to fill them in accordance with law. The State went in appeal against that judgment and the Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 475/2006 was disposed of on 20th March 2007. The Division Bench found the order of the writ Court to be innocuous but observed that the observations made by the learned single Judge shall not prejudice the State-authorities in working out the fresh vacancy position. It was further observed that if the posts of Panchayat Sevak do not exist, they may not be bound to fill up the post. 3. The authorities thereafter again proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner but he was not offered appointment because on the relevant date of consideration he had crossed the permissible age limit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner a recommendation was sent to the Director of the concerned department for relaxing the age requirement in case of the petitioners but the matter has remained pending. 4. Today, we have considered the case of Dalpatis under the earlier Act in respect of their claim for 3 appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevak on the basis of direction that their case be considered when the occasion arises for the same. Those three contempt applications bearing MJC No. 3426 of 2010, MJC No.167 of 2008 and MJC No. 169 of 2008 have been dismissed by a reasoned order passed today. In the light of that order and in view of the observation of the Division Bench in the order dated 20th March 2011 that if the posts of Panchayat Sevak do not exist the authorities may not be bound to fill up the post, we do not feel persuaded to proceed against the opposite parties in contempt jurisdiction. The contempt application is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)