IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2113 of 2007 1. Santosh Kumar Verma, son of Sri Raj Nandan Prasad, resident of Village-Kanhauli, P.O.-Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur 2. Shyamal Kumar Rai, son of Sri Devendra Nath Rai, resident of Village- Purani Pahleja Diara, P.S. Sonepur, District-Saran (Chapra) 3. Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, son of Raj Nandan Prasad, resident of Village- Kanhauli P.O.-Ramna, P.S. Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur 4. Manindra Kumar, son of Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh, resident of village & P.O. Devapur, P.S. Barauly, District-Gopalganj 5. Ashok Kumar, son of Sri Sheo Kumar Prasad Rai, resident of village- Harna, P.O. Mastichak, P.S. Dariapur, District-Saran (Chapra) 6. Dileep Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Ram Darsh Sharma, resident of Jaga Paker, Sharma Tola, P.O. Jaga paker, via- Areraj, P.S. Harsiddhi, District- East Champaran (Motihari) Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar, I.A.S., Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. D.Prasad, Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Dr. M.P.Jakharwal, Principal, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, Muzaffarpur ----------- 2. 17.08.2009 The contempt application has been filed claiming that the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by this Court has been violated. By the above order this Court had directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to constitute a committee of three Secretaries within a period of two months to examine the case of the petitioners and others in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka & ors Vs. Uma Devi: (2006) 4 SCC 1. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.4, the Principal, Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, it is stated that the matter of the petitioners was placed before a three-member - 2 - committee as directed by the order under contempt and on a consideration of the same, the claims of the petitioners were rejected by order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure-A). In the above circumstances, the directions of this Court appear to have been complied with. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. It would however, be open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 13.5.2008 passed by the three-member committee in appropriate proceedings. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)