IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1946 of 2007 RATAN KUMAR JHA, son of Sri Deo Narayan Jha, resident of village and P.O. A.D. Maheshpur, P.S. Pathargama, District Godda … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources, New Secretariat, Patna, namely, Mr. M.M.Jha, I.A.S. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, State of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, namely, Mr. M.M.Jha, I.A.S. 3. The Director, Higher Education, State of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna Mr. D.Kumar 4. The Vice Chancellor, Bhagalpur University, namely, Mrs. Prema Jha 5. The Registrar, T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, namely Mr.T.K.Ghosh 6. The Principal, Murarka College, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur, namely, Mr. Amrendra Narayan Singh … Opp.Parites. ----------- 5. 2.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for T.M.Bhagalpur University. Few cases can be more frivolous than the present one. The petitioner lost his case for regularization before this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 4165/1994 and also before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 163/1995 dismissed on 25.9.1995. Thereafter he filed another writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 4656/1998 and considering inter-parte order between the petitioner and the University this Court refused to interfere and had passed the following order: 2 “In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in C.W.J.C.no. 4165/94, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. However, if any other similarly situated person including those appointed after the petitioner is appointed/ regularized against any post deemed to have been sanctioned in pursuance of Full Bench decision in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (supra) after the judgment in C.W.J.C.No. 4165/94 and if such fresh cause of action takes place, the petitioner, in that case, may move before the authority concerned for his regular appointment.” There was no direction even to the University to consider the case of the petitioner and therefore, only because this Court had observed that the petitioner could move before the authority of the University for his regular appointment, the same was not in any way a direction which was capable of being either implemented or violated. If then the petitioner has filed this contempt application either on his own or on a legal advice, he has to thanks of his own stars. The contempt application being wholly frivolous is accordingly dismissed 3 and normally for such frivolous litigation this Court could have imposed a very heavy cost but considering that the petitioner is out of service, this Court would exempt him from such liability. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/