IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1596 of 2008 PAWAN KUMAR, Son of Mukati Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Bhusichak, Police Station-Haveli, Kharagpur, District-Munger. ------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri B.N.Pandey, the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, District-Gaya 3. Sri D.K.Yadav, the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, District-Gaya. 4. Smt. Sabita Kumari, the Principal, Ganga Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Kankarbagh, Patna --- Opp.Parties. ----------- 5 09-12-2009 This contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 13.4.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.15126 of 2006. The said order was passed in a batch of 85 writ petitions pertaining to the different Universities of the State and direction was given to the Vice Chancellors of the concerned Universities to constitute a Committee of three members to look into each individual case and to examine the manner and mode and the type of appointment and whether such appointments are in consonance with the recruitment Rules on regular posts or irregularly made or illegally made or not and the said Committee was directed to consider the individual case after giving an opportunity of hearing of the affected - 2 - employees and decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi ; ( 2006) 4 SCC 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that no three members Committee was constituted as per the direction of the Court nor the case of the petitioner has been considered by any said Committee in the light of the directions, contained in Uma Devi’s case. In the show cause filed on behalf of Opp.Party Nos.2 and 3, Officials of the University, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court dated 12.10.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997, in which it was directed that the absorptions or otherwise of the concerned employees of the 4th phase constituent colleges shall be done in accordance with law on the basis of the recommendations of Justice Agrawal Commission Report approved by the Supreme Court. It is stated that accordingly a Three Men Committee was constituted and the case of the concerned employees including the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was not found fit for absorption in terms of the - 3 - said order of the Supreme Court and the report of the Justice Agrawal Commission. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the same does not amount to compliance with the order dated 13.4.2007 of this Court. It is true that no compliance of the aforesaid order has been made in its technical sense but the same appears to have been made on account of the negligence of the authorities of the University and its Counsel in not pointing out before this Court that the case of the petitioner had already been concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court and cannot at all be considered in the light of Uma Devi’s case. For the said reason, this Court is of the view that there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court by the authorities of the University who acted in terms of the decision of the Apex Court with respect to the petitioner. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. It is pointed out by the petitioner that one Sri Lal Jha is being allowed to work in the University , although his case also was not found fit to absorption in terms of - 4 - Justice Agrawal Commission report as approved by the Supreme Court . In the show cause in paragraph-18, it is stated that the absorption list does not contain the name of Sri Lal Jha and therefore this allegation is incorrect. The authorities of the University are directed to verify whether the said Sri Lal Jha has been permitted to work and payment has been made despite his name not being in the absorption list. NKS/- ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)