IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6215 of 2011 1. Umashankar Pandey SON OF SRI RAM NARESH PANDEY RESIDENT OF BARTABHA, LAKHISARAI. 2. MD. AKBAR ALI SON OF MD. KHUDABAKSH KHAN RESIDENT OF GARHI BISHANPUR, LAKHISARAI. 3. RAJEEV KUMAR SUMAN SON OF SRI KRISHNA MOHAN MAHARAJ RESIDENT OF JAKARPURA, P.S. SURAJGARHA, LAKHISARAI. 4. BIBHASH KUMAR SON OF SHRI ANIRUDH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF KUIL BANTI, PACHNA ROAD, LAKHISARAI. 5. BIRENDRA PRASAD SON OF JHARU MAHTO RESIDENT OF MANPUR, P.S. HALSI, LAKHISARAI. 6. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SRI BALDEO YADAV RESIDENT OF DAMODARPUR, LAKHISARAI. 7. SUJEET KUMAR SON OF SRI SARYUG DAS RESIDENT OF MAHISONA LAKHISARAI. 8. RADHA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BHAGIRATH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF SHOBHNI, P.S. SURAJGARHA, LAKHISARAI. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LAKHISARAI. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Dharmendra Kumar. For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P. XIV &Mr. Subodh Kumar, A.C. to G.P. XIV ------- 2 02/08/2011 There is long history behind this litigation which has been meticulously taken note of in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in M.J.C. No. 1769 of 2008. This order is annexure-7 to the writ application. After - 2 - taking note of the various factual matrix with regard to the petitioners’ claim for appointment from a panel prepared by the district administration of Lakhisarai, the Court concluded as under : “Thus, this Court is satisfied that the opposite parties have complied order of this Court and accordingly, this contempt application being misconceived is hereby dismissed.” A review was filed against this order which has already been rejected by virtue of annexure-8. If that is where the litigation has reached, where is the occasion for this Court to reconsider the issue afresh on the ground that the Judge exercising power under contempt jurisdiction did not have the authority to travel beyond the declaration made by the writ Court. If the petitioners were aggrieved by such a declaration made in annexure-7 or 8, remedy for them would have been to knock at the next higher forum and not file yet another writ application asking for re- appraisal of the issue in the background under which earlier orders have been passed. Obviously, the petitioners have not been rendered proper legal advice and mere filing of writ application of such kind will not - 3 - compel this Court to entertain it or pass any order in favour of these petitioners. This writ application being misconceived and ill advised, is dismissed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)