IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1855 of 2010 1. SAKET CHANDRA SAMAYAR S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NAYATOLA MADHOPUR, P.O. BASUDEOPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER 6. THE JUDGE IN CHARGE ADMINISTRATION, CIVIL COURT, MUNGER 7. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SECONDARY), PATNA 8. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD (SENIOR SECONDARY), PATNA (EARSTWHILE BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL) 9. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 10. THE REGISTRAR, TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR ----------- 2/ 18/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is an Advocate Commissioner who was deputed to carry out certain invigilation work at examinations in pursuance of certain general orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10256/95. It is not in dispute that the orders of this Court were a stop-gap measure and has already come to an end. Therefore, the relief that a Mandamus be issued to depute him for invigilation work can no more be issued. In any event of the matter, perhaps such invigilation work may be to the detriment of the petitioner eating away into his professional time as an Advocate. The second submission is that he was entitled to remuneration for the invigilation work done by him. No materials has been placed before the Court of the terms and conditions on which the petitioner came to be appointed for 2 the purpose by the District & Sessions Judge. The letter dated 6.2.1996 of the District & Sessions Judge, Munger makes it more than apparent that such work was to be done in the spare time of the person concerned. Spare time obviously means without hindrance to his professional commitments. In fact, given the status of an Advocate in the society, the Court is satisfied that it was more of an honour conferred upon him. It is unfortunate that he has sought to convert it into a vocation for earning in addition to his professional status. Suffice it to say that the Court is not satisfied that the present writ petition behoves the professional status of the petitioner. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)