IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1356 of 2007 Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ambika Singh, Resident of Village Manjhiaon, P.O. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) at present resident of Sardar Patel Colony near Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Vivek Kumar Singh, the Secretary, Department of Information & Public Relations, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Director, Department of Information & Public Relations, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Bailey Road, Patna. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. P.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv. For the State :- J.C. to AAG-2 6 01.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of the order of this Court in my considered opinion is no longer correct, inasmuch as, the operative portion of the order dated 13.7.2004 in C.W.J.C. No. 2318 of 2001 reads as follows:- “-----In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the persons already recommended by the Commission including petitioner nos. 1 to 9 and 11 have already been appointed. Since majority of 2 the petitioners have already been appointed during the pendency of this application, in my opinion, no useful purpose will be served by deciding the claims of petitioner nos. 10 and 12. Petitioner nos. 10 and 12, in this view of the matter, may represent their claims before the appropriate authority and in case, certain vacancies are available their cases will be considered by the authorities concerned in accordance with law and necessary direction shall be issued in this regard preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of their representation.” From the aforementioned order of this Court, two things are clear, namely, this Court did decide the so-called claim of the petitioner no.10 who is the petitioner in this contempt application and in fact, it had only made an observation with regard to the filing of the representation and if the vacancies exist, the respondent will consider his case for appointment. In the show-cause filed by the opposite parties, an order dated 22.10.2007 has been passed disposing of the representation of the petitioner giving certain circumstance for not appointing the petitioner. 3 In the opinion of this Court, correctness of such order cannot be gone into in the contempt jurisdiction and therefore, this application on account of passing of an order on the representation has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the order of this Court has been substantially complied. It would be now, therefore, open for the petitioner to take any remedial step as against the aforesaid order passed by the authority for the relief of appointment being claimed by him in the earlier petition. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)