The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subsequent order of the court does not justify non-compliance with an earlier order, and the obligation to comply with the earlier order remains unless modified or recalled.

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1. Heard Mr.Satish Chandra Jha, learned counsel in MJC No. 1349 of 2010 and Mr. AC to GA-6 in MJC No. 4179 of 2010.

2. Both the applications arise out of the same order dated 21.8.2009 in CWJC No. 1002 of 2003 but, the prayer made in both the applications are entirely different.

3. While the petitioner in. MJC No.1349 of 2010 has made a prayer for initiating a proceeding of contempt for non-compliance of the direction contained in the order dated 21.8,2009 in the connected writ application, the prayer made in the other application MJC No. 4179 of 2010 is to modify/recall the aforesaid order dated 21.8.2009 on the ground that subsequently on 17.8.2010 an order has been passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2390 of 2010 by virtue of which the State of Bihar and its officials particularly the Collector of Saran district have become helpless in complying the order of this Court dated 21.8.2009 in CWJC No. 1002 of 2003.

4. Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of this Court dated 21.8.2009 need not be modified, inasmuch as, the said order, in absence of any appeai, has already become final and, in fact, when the opposite parties have also admitted in their own application M.J.C. No. 4179/2010 seeking modification of the same order dated 21.8.2009 that the Collector, Saran had also partly complied the said order by preparing and notifying the panel on 21.11,2009 there would be now no question of going back as with regard to complying of the remaining portion of the directions of the same order namely, appointing the persons from the aforesaid panel prepared and notified by the Collector of Saran district.

5. In this context, Mr. Jha has also laid stress on the aspect that the solitary reason for seeking modification in the earlier order dated 21.8.2009 in the case of the petitioner on account of there being a subsequent order of this Court dated 17.8.2010 in CWJC No. 2390 of 2010 can never be a justifiable ground for the Collector of Saran district inasmuch as if he had failed to bring to the notice of this Court while passing the order dated 17.8.2010 as with regard to existence of a direction given in the earlier order of this Court dated 21.8.2009 on the same subject, the remedy for him was/is to seek modification and/or classification of the order dated 17.8.2010 in C.W.J.C No. 2390 of 2010 instead of filing of this application seeking modification in the order dated 21.8.2009 in CWJC No. 1002 of 2003.

6. Learned AC to GA-6, on the other hand has submitted that from the records of the connected case CWJC No. 2390 of 2010, it would transpire that the case was disposed of on the very first day without filing of the counter affidavit by the Collector, Saran district and the concerned Law Officer, appearing in that case, was not even aware of the order of this Court dated 21.8.2009 in CWJC No. 1002 of 2003. He would further submit that in any event the Collector of the Saran district, in view of the subsequent order of this Court dated 17.8.2010, finds himself in a helpless situation in complying the remaining portion of the direction in the order dated 21.8.2009 in CWJC No. 1002 of 2003 and as such the order of this Court dated 21.8.2009 should be modified and direction for appointment from the notified panel shouid be recalled in view of the findings and directions given in the order dated 17.8.2010.

7. This Court, having appreciated the rival contentions made by the counsel in both the cases, is of the considered opinion that no ground has been made out by the counsel for the State to recall or modify the direction given by this Court in the order dated 21.8.2009 in C.W.J.C No. 1002 of 2003.

8. In this context it has to be noted that the writ application, filed by the petitioner Binod Kumar Singh working as candidate peon in Saran district for last 15 years being CWJC No. 1002 of 2003, was filed on 23.1.2003 at the point of time when the advertisement, in question, being A