IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3507 of 2010 Thakur Uday Shankar, Son of Shri Girish Kumar Thakur, R/O Village-Harpur Singhia, P.S.-Mufasil, District-Samastipur. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur Shri Pankaj Kumar. …………Opp. Parties. ---------------------------------- 5 03.11.2011 It appears that the writ application of the petitioner was disposed of in the light of some Division Bench judgment and some orders of learned Single Judges and in the light of a Government letter issued vide memo no.3335 dated 09.09.2008 in the light of the said orders. From the supplementary show cause it appears that the said letter dated 09.09.2008 was clarified by the Government vide letter contained in memo no.4084 dated 08.12.2008. This letter was issued much before the writ application of the petitioner was taken up and disposed of. However, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court for consideration. Now the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Collector in the 2 light of said directions of the Department contained in the said letter dated 08.12.2008 which confines the application of earlier order of the Department dated 09.09.2008 to already appointed Panchayat Teachers and terminated on the ground that they were holding a degree of Intermediate from a vocational course. Since the said letter was clarified by the Department much before the writ application of the petitioner was disposed of which was not brought to the notice of this Court, this Court is not inclined to proceed in the matter for contempt on account of rejection of representation of the petitioner in the teeth of the orders of this Court and the said order of the Department contained in the said letter dated 09.09.2008. It may be noticed that while disposing of the writ application, this Court had clarified that it was not expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this MJC application is dismissed with liberty to 3 the petitioner to challenge the said order of the Department dated 08.12.2008 in accordance with law in an appropriate proceeding as well as the order passed by the Collector on his representation. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)