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. 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).
(3.) 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.;