IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2812 of 2009 Harendra Sharma, son of late Ramswarth Sharma, Resident of Village Bhabdepur, Block and P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Suman Kumar, the then District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, at present Joint Development Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 5. Sri Sachindra Kumar, District Superintendent of Education and then at present not known at Sitamarhi, Distt. Sitamarhi, due to not given information under Section 2005 by the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi on the application of petitioner dated25.6.2009. 6. Sri Sanjeev Jamuar, Block Development Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi the then at present he is posted at Majhaulia Block in West Champaran. 7. Sri Abdesh Kumar, the Block Education Extension Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi, the then at present not given information uptill now by District Magistrate under Section 2005 Act on application of the petitioner. 8. The following names of the Bhaledepur Gram Panchayat Shiksha Selection Committee through Mukhiya, Riga Block Sitamarhi. (a) Smt. Shabnam Khatoon (b) Smt. Sita Devi (c) Smt. Phulan Devi (d) Sri Dharam Kailash Prasad (e) Sri Phekan Baitha 9. The Mukhiya, Phulan Devi, Bhabdepur Gram Panchayat, P.S. Riga, Dist. Sitamarhi. 10. Sri Phekan Baitha, Panchayat Secretary-cum-Panchayat Sewak, Bhabdepur Gram Panchayat, Riga Block, Sitamarhi and at present he is posted in Sirauli Panchayat, Riga Block, Sitamarhi. 11. Sri Krishan Kumar newly appointed teacher in Prathmik School, Bhagwanpur Piprahi, (Kalikapur in the Bhabdepur Panchayat), Resident of Village Parori Block Dumra, P.S. Dumaria, District Sitamarhi. --------- Contemnors/Opp. Parties ----------- 2 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner would submit 2 that though the order has been passed but, the norms for appointment has not been taken into consideration. In the opinion of this Court, the direction given in the order dated 15.1.2009 in CWJC No. 5859 of 2008, violation whereof has been complained in this contempt application, was confined to passing of an order on representation to be filed by the petitioner. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to continue with this contempt application. If the petitioner is so aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities, he may avail the remedy as is available to him in law. With the aforementioned observation, this contempt application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)