IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2553 of 2008 NAWAL KISHORE YADAV S/O B. KAPRI, R/O VILLAGE – BELSIRA, P.O. – KESHUA, GRAM PANCHAYAT- HASANPUR, P.S. & BLOCK – MUNGER SADAR, MUNGER ………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI KESI SAH, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. MAYANK BARWARE, THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. LOKESH KUMAR SINGH, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER –CUM- CHAIRMAN PANCHAYAT SEWAK SELECTION COMMITTEE, MUNGER 5. ARVIND KUMAR, THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MUNGER – CUM- VICE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SEWAK SELECTION COMMITTEE, MUNGER 6. MANZAR ABBAS, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFIER, MUNGER-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SEWAK SELECTION COMMITTEE, MUNGER ….. CONTEMNOR/OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. JITENDRA KUMAR ROY, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPP.PARTIES: NONE --- 2 25/6/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of the Division Bench dated 3.1.2006, contained in Annexure-1, directed for 2 considering of the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak and also for relaxation of their age, and that direction has been violated by the opposite parties, for which they should be punished under contempt jurisdiction. A perusal of the order, contained in Annexure -1, shows that in the operative part the direction for considering the case of the petitioner is with a rider that such consideration is required if in future decision is taken by the Government for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak. The petitioner is from the district of Munger, and according to the show cause available on the record, no decision has been taken by the Government as yet for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak in the district of Munger. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no such decision has been brought on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that only when decision is taken for appointment, a copy of such decision can be brought on record. Having considered the nature of the order contained in Annexure -1 and the stand of the opposite 3 parties, we find no sufficient materials to proceed with the contempt matter. The application is, therefore, dismissed. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)