IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2840 of 2010 1. Sanjay Kumar S/O Late Kali Singh R/O Vill. And P.S.- Fatehpur, Distt.- Gaya (Petitioner) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mr. Ajay Nayak, The Commissioner And Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 3. Mr. Debi Rajak, The Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 4. Mr. Rajendra Mahto, The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Bhagalpur 5. Surendra Prasad Singh, The Superintending Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Jamui 6. Gajendra Choudhary, The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Shekhpura ----------- 6. 29.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. The District Magistrate is present in person. I.A. No. 4252 has been filed today on behalf of the Chief Engineer for dispensing of his personal appearance. The same is not on record. The office shall place it on record. Two show cause are stated to have been filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 28.6.2011 and 29.6.2011. Both are not on record. The office shall place the same on record also. The Court therefore requested the counsel for the Opposite Parties to make available his copies for perusal. For reasons stated in the I.A. application it is allowed. The direction in the writ petition was to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 2 The claim of the petitioner for appointment based on the long years of service has been rejected. Once the case of the petitioner has been considered, the order stands complied and there is no occasion to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner from Annexure-D to the show cause submits that vacancies still exist. Urging that the petitioner continued as a daily wager for over 10 years, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2010 (9) SCC 247 (State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari). There is no occasion to give any direction in that regard in the present contempt application. If the petitioner so represents fairness and reasonableness on part of the respondents require them to consider his claim, but in accordance with law only, notwithstanding the refusal of the Court to entertain the contempt application, expeditiously. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)