IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3539 of 2008 KAMESHWAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 4-8-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the order of the writ court contained in annexure-1 has been violated because in the panel prepared by the opposite parties the name of the petitioner and several other similarly situated persons has not been included. On behalf of opposite parties it has been submitted on the basis of counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.4 that the case of the petitioner and several other persons were considered but they were found not eligible to be included in the panel because of the criteria adopted as policy that only those seasonal D.D.T. sprayer shall be included in the panel who have worked at least for minimum 240 days in a calendar year. The dispute of facts raised by the petitioner and his claim that he should be included in the panel can not be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. This application is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that petitioner 2 would be at liberty to pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)