IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.246 of 2006 1.Dr. Pushpa Prasad D/o late H.N.Upadhaya C/o Dr.M.S.Prasad, resident of Chakbasu, P.O.Ramna, P.S.Muzaffarpur Sadar, District Muzaffarpur; At present working as Teacher-cum-associate N.C.C. Officer, Chapman Govt. Girls High School, Muzaffarpur 2.Dr.Dijay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Lalan Pandey, resident of Home Guard Campus, Circuit House Road Arrah 3.Dr.Bunnu Kumari Pandey D/o Shri Bashistha Muni Mishra, resident of village and P.O.Basaon Kala P.S.Nawanagar, District Bhojpur, at present Working as B.E.E.O., Piro, Bhojpur 4.Neelam Srivastava D/o Shri Ladli Sharan, resident of C/o Shri Prakash Chandra Sinha, Mahabir Tola, Arrah, Bhojpur 5.Dr.Prabha Kumari W/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, resident of near Shekhpura Bagaicha, P.O.B.V.V. College, Patna-14 at present working as a Teacher At Model Inter College, Bahadurpur,Samastipur 6.Madan Mohan Roy S/o Shri Nand Kishore Roy, resident of village Sahauri, P.O.Saidpur(pusa) District Samastipur, at present working as a Teacher at Golf Field Railway High School, Samastipur 7.Binod Kumar Lal son of late Jiwachh Lal, resident of C/o Bipin Kumar Lal, Bihar Engineering College Campus, Patna-5, at present working as a Teacher In Govt. Primary School, Paveri, Dhanarua Block P.S.Dhanarua, District Patna-----------petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar through Dr.M.M.Jha, the Secondary, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna- 800015 2.Dr.M.M.Jha, the Secretary, Primary and Mass Education, Govt.of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna- 800015 3.Ashok Kumar Singh, Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna- 800015 4.Shyam Nandan Choudhary, Director (Administration) -cum-Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5.Anil Kumar, Special Director, Secondary Education Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6.The State of Bihar---------------------Opp.parties ----------- 2 7. 21.7.2009 In the present matter the petitioners are aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order dated 5.4.2005. By the said order the writ application had been disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to represent their cases before the Government Authorities for redressal of their grievances and in case it is so done the same would be considered and disposed of by the competent authority by speaking order in terms of the order under contempt. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4, Director (Administration)- cum-Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna the order under Memo No.1 dated 3.1.2009 passed by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department has been annexed in which it is stated that the advertisement of 1997 and the deputation list prepared in the year 1998 has been cancelled by the Department by order under Memo No. 5 dated 25.1.2005 and in the said circumstances no order of deputation can be issued on the basis of the said advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court by order dated 5.4.2005 had 3 directed the authorities to disclose the number of vacancies and the sanctioned posts and in case there is existence of the same the authorities will issue notification pertaining to the petitioners who were selected in the interview in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the departmental order dated 25.1.2005 had been brought on the record in the writ petition and the same had also been challenged by the writ petitioners by filing I.A. for setting aside the said order. From a perusal of the order under contempt I do not find any reference to the said order and in any case the said order cancelling the advertisement and the deputation list has not been set aside by the order under contempt dated 5.4.2005. In the above circumstances, it cannot be held that the authorities have committed any contempt by disobedience of the order of this Court as the notification pertaining to the petitioners was to be issued only in accordance with law and once the advertisement and the deputation list have been cancelled by the departmental order there can be no deputation/appointment pursuant to the 4 same unless the said order of cancellation is itself set aside by this Court. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to say that the petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in the matter. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/