Shiva Kirti Singh & Shivaji Pandey, JJ. –

Heard the parties.

The five petitioners have preferred this writ petition on 1st September 2010 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them as Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, because their names find place in the recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter described as “B.P.S.C.”) in the panel dated 22nd February 1988 (Annexure-25). The recommendation was made by the B.P.S.C. against Advertisement No. 93 of 1985. The petitioners have also prayed that the authorities be directed to ascertain and confirm the total number of vacancies prior to 31st December 1987 which have remained unfilled due to non-joining of the earlier appointees.

2. Earlier, as will be clear from Annexure-2, a writ petition preferred by similar candidates who had formed an Association described as „Bihar State Un-employed Engineers (recommended by B.P.S.C) Association and others, fell for decision before a Division Bench of this Court and vide judgment contained in Annexure-2 dated 21st November 1995 this Court directed the authorities to act in accordance with decision of the Bihar Cabinet and fill up all the posts of Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department available upto 31st December 1987, with the candidates included in the panel. The Division Bench failed to decide the number of vacancies or posts available till 31st December 1987 and, therefore, only a general direction was issued in the terms noticed above.

3. The matter was taken by the writ petitioners to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7516-17 of 1996. The appeals were dismissed with an observation that although the High Court has failed to decide the vacancies, it would be for the Government to make fresh exercise to identify the existing vacancies meant for the general candidates or for the reserved candidates and if the vacancies could be identified, they should be filled up from amongst the candidates from the waiting list. In case the Government failed to find any vacancy then it was required to place a report before the High Court. This order of the Supreme Court dated 8th April 1996 is contained in Annexure-3.

4. The Bihar State Un-employed Civil Engineers’ Association and others preferred a petition in C.W.J.C. No. 2093 of 1989 to persuade this Court to ascertain and declare the actual number of vacancies but the Court by order dated 30th August 1996 (Annexure-4) decided not to entertain such a plea in view of earlier judgment of this Court contained in Annexure-2 and the judgments and order of the Supreme Court contained in Annexure-3 by which the matter was left to be determined by the State Government which was to place a report before the Court, if the vacancies were not existing. At the instance of the Association a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 1533 of 1996 was filed. As appears from the final order in that case dated 12th December 1996 (Annexure-5), the Commissioner cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, disclosed the availability of 72 vacancies which could be filled up in view of the Cabinet decision dated 2nd February 1998. This Court accepted the vacancy position made available to it and directed for appointment against 72 vacancies shown by the Government to be available. The Rule in the contempt matter was discharged.

5. After more than 14 years the petitioners preferred a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 2065 of 2010 for punishing the respondents for disregard of the order of the Supreme Court dated 8th April 1996 (nnexure-3). They alleged that the concerned authorities had disregarded the direction to find out the vacancies existing as on 31st December 1987 on the basis of which they ought to have offered appointment to the petitioners who were in the Select List/Waiting List for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil). The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the contempt application on 8th July 2010 by ord