(1.) From the show-cause replies filed by the Respondents/Opposite Party-State of Bihar, annexing thereto the letter vide Memo (Annexure-A), dated-31.12.2009, passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, it appears that the representation filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 3 was duly considered and a decision thereon has been taken in as much as, the Respondent-State of Bihar has no objection to the grant of the petitioner's prayer for allotment of Jharkhand cadre to him and, in fact, a recommendation in this regard has already been forwarded to the State Advisory Committee by the Respondent No. 2 and it is for the State Advisory Committee to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation in the light of the no objection declared by the Respondent-State of Bihar.
(2.) On perusal of the directions contained in the impugned order dated-26.02.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 733 of 2008, it appears that though the Respondents including the Respondent-Union of India were directed to pass an appropriate order on the petitioner's representation in the context of his prayer for allotment of the Jharkhand cadre to him, the petitioner was directed to file his representation in the office of the Respondent No. 3, namely, the Secretary, State Advisory Committee. It appears that in spite of the representation filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3, the final decision on the petitioner's representation is yet to be taken by the State Advisory Committee.
(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed that the directions contained in the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application has been complied with by the Respondent No. 3. However, the State Advisory Committee, referred to as the Respondent No. 8 in the original writ application, shall take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's representation in the light of the directions contained in this Court's order, passed in W.P. (S) No. 733 of 2008 and communicate such decision to the petitioner within three months from the date of this order. There being no further need for retaining this Contempt application on board, the same is accordingly, dropped.