IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.720 of 2001 VIRENDRA PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, Standing Counsel-XI ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th August, 2008. This contempt application has been preferred by 14 petitioners, who were petitioners in writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 9701 of 2000, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 22nd September, 2000. 2. On 22nd September, 2000, this Court disposed of writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 9701 of 2000, by the following order: - “In the facts of this case, I direct the respondents- authorities of the Road Construction Department to consider the case of the petitioners also for their regularization and if it is found that they have been appointed and are working on a sanctioned vacant posts without any interruption and services of persons subsequently appointed to the petitioners have been regularized then appropriate order should be passed in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3. There are counter affidavits, supplementary counter affidavits, rejoinder, supplementary rejoinder etc. We do not - 2 - deem it necessary to refer to these affidavits in view of the facts stated in the application (I.A. No. 5081 of 2008) filed by the petitioners on 22nd August, 2008. 4. As per this application, the grievance of the petitioners 4 and 6 to 13 does not survive any longer as they have been appointed on regular basis under memo No. 4366(E) dated 7th September, 2007. In so far as petitioner nos. 2 and 11 are concerned, it is stated in the application that they have been found ineligible for regularization. The counsel for the petitioners has not put in issue the correctness of the decision of the competent authority that petitioners no. 2 and 11 are not eligible for reguarlsiation. 5. The grievance is now confined in respect of petitioner nos. 1, 3, 5 and 14. It is stated that by drawing a wrong seniority list, these petitioners have been deprived of regularization. Counsel for the petitioners reiterated what has been indicated in the application that seniority list could not have been prepared on the basis of date of birth; it ought to have been prepared on the basis of initial engagement as daily wagers. 6. We are afraid, in contempt jurisdiction, the legality and correctness of the seniority list does not deserve to be examined. As per petitioners own showing and as stated in the application (I.A. No. 5081 of 2008), the authorities proceeded and completed the exercise as was directed in the order dated 22nd September, 2000 and eight of them, who were found eligible, have - 3 - been given appointment. Two of the petitioners were found ineligible and, therefore, their services could not be regularized and with regard to petitioner nos. 1, 3, 5 and 14, it is submitted that although they were eligible but they could not be appointed in view of their lower seniority in the seniority list. How could in the circumstances, the respondents be held guilty of contempt? 7. The counsel would submit that there are still five sanctioned and permanent vacant posts available and this fact has been recorded by the Departmental Engineer-in-Chief. As a matter of fact, in view of what has been noticed by the Departmental Engineer- in-Chief on 29th February, 2008 and of which reference is made in paragraph 6 of the application, the petitioners no. 1, 3, 5 and 14 would be regularized on the basis of their seniority as and when their turn comes. 8. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot be held guilty of having willfully disobeyed or acted in defiance of the order dated 22nd September, 2000. 9. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. 10. This disposes of I.A. No. 5081 of 2008. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-