IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1387 of 2006 AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & Ors. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sinha For the respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyal JC to GA V P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan --- Dated, the 7th August, 2008 In this contempt application, the grievance is with regard to no-compliance of the order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by this court in writ petition (CWJC No.5886 of 2004). 2. The writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be disposed of by the following order: “Considering the materials on record and the policy decision of the State Government, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Establishment Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Kaimur to examine the vacancies as indicated in annexures 9 & 10 and apply its mind to the directions already issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department as noticed above and take a decision in respect of appointment of petitioners and other recommended candidates who may be similarly situated at the earliest and in any case within two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order.” 3. The petitioners have raised grievance that the order 2 dated 3rd March, 2006 has not been complied with. 4. Show cause has been filed by the opposite party no.5 on 9.2.2007 and as well as by opposite party no.4 on 8.3.2007. Subsequently, supplementary show cause has been filed by the opposite party no.5 on 13.7.2007. 5. In the show cause filed by the opposite party no.5 on 9.2.2007, the following explanation has been given: “That the deponent most humbly submitted that the Establishment Committee headed by this deponent proceeded in the compliance of the direction given by the Hon’ble court and held its meeting on 23.6.2006 and considered the matter of appointment of petitioners in the light of guide lines/directions issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department vide letter no.9975 dated 13.11.2004, letter no.10649 dated 9.12.2004 and letter no.5046 dated 29.05.06 and took decision of not making appointment of petitioners as their appointments were found more than the number of posts advertised vide its proceeding dated 23.06.06 resolution no.4(I). That it would be relevant to mention here that as per direction issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department through letter no.9975 dated 13.11.2004 and letter no.5046 dated 29.5.2006 the appointments are not to be made in excess of the number of posts advertised as the vacancies to be filled up pursuant to advertisement. That the deponent most humbly submits that in the light of decision taken by the Establishment Committee this respondent also passed a reasoned order on 30.6.2006 giving detail facts and reasonings and directed not to make appointment more than the number of posts advertised. The said order has also been published on the notice Board.” 6. The documents, particularly, Annexure – A, Annexures B & B/1 and Annexure – C have also been annexed in 3 support of the facts stated in paragraphs 5 to 7, quoted above. 7. We are , thus, satisfied that the order of this court dated 3rd March, 2008 has been substantially complied with and the respondents cannot be held guilty of deliberate disobedience or defiance of the said order. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. Neyaz/