IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.86 of 2011 1. BHAWESH SHARMA, SON OF LATE KAMO SHARMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MURARPUR, P.S. NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 2. BIKRAM MANDAL SON OF LATE DAYA MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASUDEVAPUR, P.S. BASUDEVAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER. 3. SHIV NARAYAN MANDAL, SON OF LATE PACHU MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHANDI ASTHAN, P.S. BASUDEVAPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER. 4. VIJAY RAM SON OF LATE AMRIT RAM, RESIDENT OF CHOTTIKALA BANDH, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT MUNGER. 5. LACHU MANDAL SON OF LATE CHOTELAL MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHYAMPUR, P.S. KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI GIRISH SHANKAR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, MUNGER. 2. SRI SURENDRA PRASAD, DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI SANJAY KUMAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SRI BIPIN KUMAR SINGH, DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, MUNGER. 5. SRI PREM SINGH MEENA, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER. ---------------------------------- 06. 08.09.2011 In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 12.7.2010, Annexure-1 Zila Parishad, Munger considered the case of the petitioners for regularization under proceeding dated 16.08.2011, Annexure-G to the show cause filed by opposite party no.4, who is also present in Court in compliance of the earlier order of the High Court. Perusal of the aforesaid proceeding dated 16.08.2011 indicates that the request of the petitioners for regularization in the establishment of Zila Parishad has been rejected with 2 reference to the circular of the State Government dated 26.03.2010 and 31.03.2011. According to the counsel for the petitioners the two circulars on the basis of which the case of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected are prospective in nature and should not have been relied upon for rejecting the case of the petitioners. In this connection, learned counsel also submitted that committee headed by the District Magistrate, Munger, which rejected the request of the petitioners for regularization lacks even the common understanding that the circulars of the State Government are always prospective in nature. Aforesaid submission can be better appreciated when the proceeding dated 16.08.2011 as communicated to the petitioners under Memo No.511 dated 25.08.2011 is challenged by the petitioners by filing another writ petition. With the liberty aforesaid, the contempt petition is disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)