IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.207 of 2006 1.RAJA PRASAD, son of Sri Sheoji Prasad, resident of village Digghi Kala (West), P.O. & P.S.Hajipur District Vaishali 2.Amarnath Gupta, son of late Balmiki Sah, resident of village Mansi Gharari, P.O. Mansi, P.S.Mansi District Khagaria 3.Parmanand Singh, son of Sri Ram Sewak Singh, resident of village Chak Jainab, P.O.Chak Sikandar, P.S.Biddupur, District Vaishali 4.Sandeep Kumar, son of Sri Ram Nihora Sharna, resident of village Rampur Ratnakar alias Sarsai P.S.Sarai, District Vaishali 5.Surendra Rai, son of Sri Mahendra Prasad Rai, resident of Mohalla Choudhary Bazar, Hajipur, P.S.Hajipur, District Vaishali 6.Sushil Kumar, son of Sri Ram Swartha Singh, resident of village Singhiya Kamalpur, P.O. & P.S. Biddupur, District Vaishali 7.Gagandeo Mahto, son of Sri Jagdish Mahto, resident of village Bishunpura, P.O.Damodarpur P.S.Pipra, District East Champaran(Motihari) 8.Ramesh Kumar Rai, son of Sri Jugeshwar Rai, resident of village Balba Kuari, P.O.Balba Kuari P.S.Hajipur, District Vaishali 9.Shatrughan Mahto, son of late Deonandan Mahto resident of village Narauli, P.O.Binda, P.S. Musahari, District Muzaffarpur 10.Ram Krishna Singh, son of late Shankar Singh resident of Majlishpur, P.S.Biddupur, District Vaishali-------------------petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Ravikant, I.A.S., Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3.Sri C. Lopisha, I.A.S., Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4.Sri Sanjeev Hans, I.A.S., Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 5.Sri Shankar Shambhu Baahadur, Deputy Collector Establishment, Vaishali at Hajipur---Opp.parties ----------- For the petitioners :M/S S.P.Mukherjee,Sr.Advocate Shanti Pratap,Advocate For the State :Mr.Anil Kumar Jha,G.A.2 ----- 2 5. 14.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate No.2 for the State. The direction of this Court to the Collector, Vaishali was to fill up the sanctioned vacant posts of Class IV employees in accordance with law and while doing so he was to consider the cases of the writ petitioners except petitioner no.11 for their appointments against the sanctioned vacant posts. In the several show causes and supplementary show causes filed on behalf of the opposite parties it is ultimately stated that in the B.C. category appointments have been made up to serial no. 39 in which only petitioner no.5 Surendra Rai, being at serial no.35, was found fit for appointment whereas the other petitioners of B.C. category are at serial no.131 to serial no.304 and thus they have not been appointed. Regarding M.B.C. category it is stated that appointments have been made up to serial no. 201 of the panel and therefore the petitioner no.7 Gagandeo Mahto being at serial no.309 of that category could not be appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the panel itself was not correctly prepared 3 as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is a Government Notification bearing No. 3577 dated 25.4.1997, according to which the seniority in the panel is to be given according to the age of the person concerned. From the order under contempt dated 12.9.2005 it is evident that the statements have been made in the counter affidavit that a panel has been prepared pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in several writ applications and contempt applications and the names of the petitioners except petitioner no.11 of the writ petition find place in the said panel but no issue was raised at that stage by learned counsel for the petitioners either before the writ Court or by filing subsequent writ petitions challenging the position of the writ petitioners in the panel which was prepared prior thereto. No such issue has been decided in the order under contempt. In my view, the said issue cannot be considered in an application for initiating contempt proceedings and the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the same amounts to an error of record is not an issue 4 which can be considered in the contempt jurisdiction. In the above circumstances, the opposite parties appear to have complied with the order dated 12.9.2005 in terms of the direction that had been made. The application for contempt is, accordingly, dismissed. If the petitioners have any grievance with respect to the panel it is for them to take up the issue before the appropriate forum as they may be advised. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/