Tapen Sen, J.

1. L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 arises out of an Order dated 31.3.2004 passed in WP (S) No. 1628 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has directed the appellants to show-cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court after holding that they have committed such contempt.

2. We wish to deal with the Writ petition first so as to enable us to decided the dispute between the parties and also to come to a conclusion as to whether the appellants of L.P.A. No. 264 of 2004 have, in fact. committed contempt or not.

3. in the writ petition, there are petitioners and each one of them submit that they are Category-1 displaced persons ad the their names, after verification, had been forwarded to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 8. for purposes of appointing them but since nothing was being done thereafter, a writ of mandamus should therefore be issued directing the said respondent No. 2 to include their names in Category-I and to fix their seniority interse on the basis of their age and then to appoint them as per guideline passed in an earlier contempt application, which was registered before the then Ranch! Bench of the Patna High Court as M.J.C. 139/1999 (R). This contempt application arose out of two Letters Patent Appeals which were registered as L.P.S. No. 161/96 (R) and L.P.A. No. 162/96 (R) both of which, in turn, arose out of CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R).

4. According to the petitioners, they apprehend that they would be left out because the respondents are about to make appointments from a list of 207 persons prepared arbitrarily by the respondent No. 2 although by reason of Orders of the High Court referred to above, the respondent No. 8 had actually for warded the names of 286 persons including the petitioners in Category-1 for their appointment.

5. it appears from the pleadings that about 382 persons moved the then Ranchi Bench of the Honble Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 2459 of 1996 (R) which was disposed off on 26.6.1996 vide Annexrue-1 appended to the instant Writ Application. Those petitioners also claimed to be displaced persons, their lands having been acquired by the State of Bihar in favour of Steel Authority of india Limited for setting up the Bokaro Steel Plant. They were aggrieved by a communication dated 11.5,1995 by which they were intimated that no appointments would be made on the post of khalasi out of a Notification dated 5.9.1991. They therefore prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to consider their cases for appointment on the post of khalasi taking into consideration that they were all displaced persons. it further appears that the respondents had rejected the claims of the petitioners for appointment against a Notification dated 5.9.1991 on the following grounds :

a. Because the interview could not take place in February. 1992 on account of non availability of the D. P.L. R.;

b. Because there was an already existing panel prepared in the year 1991 and till that panel was not exhausted, it was not desirable to make appointments;

c. Because in general, there was no need for khalasi which could be tilled up from the 1991 panel, which, was still alive; and

d. Because there were complaints regarding the displaced person who had been earlier called for interview and the complaints were as to whether they were actually displaced persons or not? in the absence of a consultation with the D.P.L.R.. this could not be verified.

6. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed with the following observations :

According, i hold that the impugned decision, as contained in letter dated llth May. 1995 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india and set aside the same. As the respondents are in need to appoint khalasis. which will be evident from the fact that they have continued to make appointments during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents are directed to nil up all such posts of khalasi