Alakh Kumar Sinha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.627 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22160 of 2012 ======================================================
1. Alakh Kumar Sinha. Son of Late Ashok Kumar Sinha. Resident of Shivampuri, Station Road, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui.
2. Satish Kumar Sinha. Son of Sri Birendra Prasad Sinha. Resident of Shastri Colony, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui.
3. Dilip Jha. Son of Sri Amarnath Jha. Resident of V.I.P. Colony, North of Block Office, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Sri Amir Subhani, Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp17- Binodji Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 On 19.12.2012, C.W.J.C. No.22160 of 2012 was disposed of with an innocuous order that the District Collector, Jamui shall consider preparation of the panel and grant appointment to the eligible candidate in the vacant Class-3 post. A detailed show cause has been filed indicating that, in all the 13 cases in which petitions were filed and identical orders were passed, the matter was considered by the Collectorate and after consideration of the matter, as is detailed at Annexure-A filed to the show cause, a panel has been prepared wherein after considering the cases of the persons,
Patna High Court MJC No.627 of 2015 (3) dt.07-07-2017 2/2 which included the petitioners herein, 11 have been granted appointment, as is evident from Annexure-B.
That being so, now once the Department has considered the matter and granted appointment to the eligible persons, in the absence of there being any specific direction, no case is made out for initiating action for contempt. In case the petitioners are aggrieved with the manner in which the panel has been prepared and their cases have been left out, the same gives a fresh cause of action to agitate the matter, but not a case for initiating action for contempt.
With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- U