IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.419 of 2008 HIRA LAL SHARMA, son of Sri Anant Sharma, resident of village Kharoj, P.S. Surajpura, P.O. Surajpura, District Rohtas (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Secretary Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Shri Abid Hussain Kuraishi, the Engineer-in- Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Shri Ram Dhani Baitha, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri-on-Sone 4. Shri Hari Nandan Prasad, Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal, Circle Ara 5. Shri Shankar Mandal, Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Bikramganj, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas … Contemner/ Opp.Parties ----------- 4. 1.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In the opinion of this Court the order to the following extent as was passed on 21.6.2006 in C.W.J.C.No. 1787/2005: “ In the event there is a vacancy in the post of a driver in Sone Canal Division, Bikramganj, let appropriate steps be taken within a reasonable time to fill up the said post. It is claimed that the petitioner is driving a vehicle attached to the said Division, although he was appointed as a Class IV employee and continued to remain employed as such. If that be so, while filling up the post of driver the authorities concerned 2 are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner also and at that stage not to insist on age restriction.” is not capable of being violated much less made subject matter of contempt petition. This is so because this Court never decided whether there is a post of driver and even if the post of driver was vacant, the petitioner should be appointed on that post. In the show cause filed by the authority there is categorical statement that there is no existing post of driver to consider the case of the petitioner. Such stand may be correct or may be incorrect but that cannot be the scope of contempt petition. For that the petitioner will have to initiate a fresh proceeding and the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that it is absurd to suggest that there would be four vehicles at the place of working of the petitioner, yet there is no sanctioned post can also not be gone into in this contempt proceeding. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and must be dismissed. 3 The petitioner, if so advised, may seek appropriate remedy as is available to him in law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/