IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.615 of 2010
1. PAWANDEO KUMAR S/O SRI JAGDISH MAHTO R/O VILL.-
BISHUNPURA, P.S.- PIPRA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI), AT
PRESENT WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR (WELDING) ON DAILY WAGES
BASIS, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP, MUZAFFARPUR
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR
2. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI LAXMAN BHAGAT R/O MOHALLA- LAXMI
CHOWK, BRAHMAPURA, P.O.- M.I.T., P.S.- BRAHMAPURA, DISTT.-
MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR (CARPENTRY)
ON DAILY WAGES BASIS, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING WORKSHOP,
MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR
3. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI BHUNESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA-
SALUGANJ, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA, AT PRESENT
WORKING AS CLERK ON DAILY WAGES BASIS IN THE OFFICE OF
MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR-
-----PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. MR. AJAY KUMAR, I.A.S., SECRETARY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. DR. D. PRASAD, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. DR. P. JAKHARWAL, PRINCIPAL, MUZAFFARPUR INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, MUZAFFARPUR------------------------------------OPP.PARTIES
-----------
For the petitioners :M/S Shyama Prasad Mukherjee,Sr.Advocate
Shanti Pratap, Advocate
For the State :M/S Sheojee Prasad, G.P.2
P.Bharti, A.C. to G.P.2
——
4. 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the State.
The present contempt application has been filed for
initiating proceeding of contempt against opposite party
No.3, the Director, Science and Technology, Bihar for
willfully and deliberately swearing false affidavit by filing
supplementary show cause in the connected MJC No.3013
2
of 2007 stating that the Principal of the college is not
competent authority for making any type of appointment in
case of the petitioners and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their
stand has sought to rely upon a Circular No.539 dated
6.2.1964 issued by the Department of Industries and
Mines, Technical Education, Government of Bihar under
which power have been delegated to the Principal of MIT,
Muzaffarpur, among others, for the purpose of fixing
wages and making appointment of daily rated workers
which was mentioned as full powers subject to the marked
conditions but not exceeding Rs.2.50 per day in the case of
unskilled labourers and Rs.5/- per day in the case of skilled
workers and semi-skilled workers and further subject to the
condition of the expenditure being made out of the existing
budget allotment.
It is submitted that in view of the said Circular of
1964 the statement made by the Director in his
supplementary show cause filed in the earlier contempt
application is a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court by
making false statement.
3
Various show causes have been filed on behalf of the
opposite party. Apart from others, reliance is placed on a
letter dated 18.9.1973 issued by the Industries and
Technical Department, Government of Bihar in which
reference is made to the power of appointment of the
Director, Technical Education, Bihar with respect to all
non-gazetted posts under the administrative control of the
Director. The opposite party also relies upon a letter dated
20.9.1995 by the Director, Science and Technology
Department, Bihar which is addressed to, among others, all
Principals/Directors of Engineering Colleges in which it is
stated that the competent appointing authority of the non-
gazetted employees and daily rated workers is the Director,
Science and Technology and since 1985 the Personnel
Department had put a stop upon appointing daily rated
employees yet such illegal appointments are being made by
them and, accordingly, they were directed not to make such
appointments.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
nothing has been brought on the record to show that such
powers have been taken away from the Principal. Even if
the said submission is accepted, in view of the letters dated
4
18.9.1973 and specially the letter dated 20.9.1995 it is
evident that no deliberate attempt has been made to
mislead the Court by filing false statement in the earlier
contempt application by stating that the Principals did not
have any power of appointment.
In that view of the matter, the contempt application
is not fit to be proceeded with. It is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)
Spal/