IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3985 of 2009 DR. BIBHA LATA KESHRI, D/O SHRI B.P.KESHRI, R/O MOHALLA-M/2-6, ROAD NO.10/E, RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA-16. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. SHRI RAVI KANT, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE R.J.M. PILLARI, CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 3. SHRI GOVIND NARAYAN AKHOURI, SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 4. SHRI UDAY SHANKAR PD. SINGH, OFFICER-ON- SPECIAL DUTY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 5. SHRI TULSI PD. SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA-1. 6. THE STATE OF BIHAR. ………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 5 28.07.2010 Petitioner who appears in person alleges that the BPSC had not furnished correct informations to this Court when MJC No. 366 of 2008 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 6.2.2009. The order which is contained as Annexure-3(1) shows that the matter was referred by the BPSC to the Government for issuing fresh advertisement inviting fresh applications for appointment on the post in question. In view of the said fact, this Court found that no case of deliberate disobedience of orders is made out 2 in this case. This Court had also examined the original application of the petitioner as well as one Dr.Nirupama whose application was said to be found in order. The petitioner who appears in person admits that the Department has issued fresh advertisement inviting applications from candidates claiming for consideration of their application against the post in question. Petitioner who appears in person informs this Court that she had already applied against the fresh advertisement, but her application has been rejected, which she claims to have been wrongly done. This is a matter which has to be challenged by the petitioner in an appropriate proceeding. Since the earlier advertisement and consideration of her application, which was not acted upon, is the past history, no contempt is made out in respect of any action of the opposite parties in the matter at that stage. The MJC application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law for her grievances arising out of her alleged rejection of her 3 subsequent application against the subsequent advertisement. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)