IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2627 of 2009 RAMESHWAR PODDAR, son of Late Prabhu Poddar, resident of village Bikrampur, P. S. Cheriya, Bariarpur, District- Begusarai, presently residing at Mohalla Rajbanshi Nagar, P. S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna at present retired Assistant Teacher, Maidan Adarsh Middle School, Danapur, Patna... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mr. Ashutosh, the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Education Establishment Committee through its Secretary i.e. the District Superintendent of Education, Patna namely Mr. Shashi Bushan Rai. 4. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Rai, the District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 5. Mr. Bhuneshwar Sharma, the Incharge Headmaster, Maidan Adarsh Middle School, Danapur-1, Patna... Opposite parties. ----------- 2. 07.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A bare perusal of operative portion of the order of this Court dated 10.3.2008 in CWJC No. 8642 of 2005 reading as follows; “ The dismissal of the writ application, however, would not mean that the petitioner’s claim for promotion in future against I. A. & B. A. trained scale of pay would stand negated for all the time to come. The petitioner if found entitled in terms of the rules for such promotion must be considered for the same. The petitioner in this regard may file a representation before the District Superintendent of Education, who will place such a representation before the District Education Establishment Committee and obtain an order of the committee as with regard to the claim of the petitioner.” 2 would go to show that there was only at best a direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of I. A. and B. A. Trained scale of pay. In the show-cause reply filed by opposite parties, an order dated 23.1.2010 has been enclosed disposing of such representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would like to assail the order on merits by stating that the same in fact would amount to no consideration in the eye of law. In the opinion of this Court, the scope of contempt cannot be expanded for examining the merits of the order when there was only a limited direction for disposal of the representation. The petitioner, if so aggrieved by said order, may assail the same in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this contempt application is disposed of. kanchan. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)