Rajiv Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1018 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7721 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

Rajiv Kumar Singh Son of Sarva Nand Singh, Resident of Village-Lodipur, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna.

2.

Ravi Kumar, Son of Surendra Prasad, Resident of Gate No. 62, Kurji More, P.S. Digha, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Patna.

2.

Lokesh Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Patna.

3.

Vandana Kini, The Chairman, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Patna Air Port, Patna14. 4.

Anil Kumar Sinha, the Officer on Special Duty, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Patna Air Port, Patna-14.

5.

Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the Examination Controller, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building, Near Patna Air Port, Patna-14.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta (Gp 10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL ORDER 09-02-2024 The present MJC-Contempt petition is filed for noncompliance of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed in CWJC No. 7721 of 2021.

2. Direction is limited to the extent of consideration of petitioner's various representation and to pass a speaking order. On 18.10.2022, petitioner's representation has been considered

Patna High Court MJC No.1018 of 2022(7) dt.09-02-2024 2/2 and proceeded to pass speaking order on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 who is stated to be competent authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that certain material information have not been taken note of in respect of similarly situated persons who are stated to have been appointed/regularised.

4. Scope of contempt petition is very limited only to the extent of whether orders of this Court has been complied or not? Therefore, the aforementioned disputed facts cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, the present MJC-Contempt petition stands dropped, reserving liberty to the petitioners to assail the order dated 18.10.2022 in accordance with law. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) jyoti/- U