IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.976 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . with MJC No.977 of 2009 UMESH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 5/ 03/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the University and for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very opening lines of the order in the writ petition notices that no issues of eligibility or disqualification with regard to the petitioner had been raised before it. Directions in the background were issued for payment of admissible dues which has not been complied with. It is submitted that the petitioner are the teachers in a minority institution. Placing strong reliance on paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of the counter affidavit filed by the University in C.W.J.C. No.12033/2009 it is submitted that the present minority college was at liberty to appoint teachers and non-teaching employees as per its requirement and there was no need for approval by the State Government or need for recommendation by the University to create post or appoint teaching or non- teaching staff. The University in no uncertain terms states in paragraph No.17 that the teaching and non- - 2 - teaching employees who were working in this present college as shown in Annexure-3A of Agrawal Commission’s Report are deemed to be working on sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the University submits that the claims of the petitioner have been examined and a reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the Registrar on 20.9.2010 to the effect that the petitioner in light of Agrawal Commission’s Report falls in the category of N.R./R-2 and therefore his appointment was not in accordance with law. The petitioner is not entitled to any payments. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the statements made by the University in paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of its counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No.12033/09 in no uncertain terms appear in conflict directly with the fresh order dated 20.9.2010. However, the constraints of the contempt jurisdiction restrains it from proceeding any further in the matter. No further enquiry can be made in a contempt proceeding beyond the directions contained in the writ petition. The contempt proceedings are therefore disposed with the observation that if so advised the petitioner may question the order dated 20.9.2010 in a freshly constituted writ application. - 3 - Nothing in this order shall be deemed to be a conclusive opnion regarding the order dated 20.9.2010, which shall necessarily have to be adjudicated on its own merit in a fresh proceeding. If the petitioner questions the order dated 20.9.2010 in a freshly constituted writ application and succeeds, quite naturally, he is entitled to raise the issue of grant of appropriate interests to him and costs. The proceedings stand disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)