A reasoned rejection order constitutes compliance, even when the underlying claim is denied.

The petitioner, a retired Block Agriculture Officer, alleged non-compliance with the High Court’s order dated 24 July 2023 in his writ petition.

That order directed the Director, Agriculture Department, to consider his claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amresh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar.

The State stated that it had reconsidered the claim and rejected it, giving reasons including the petitioner’s cadre and pay status, his failure to pass the departmental examination or apply for exemption within the prescribed time, and the applicable exemption rules.

The petitioner maintained that the rejection was inconsistent with the Supreme Court decision, but submitted that he could challenge it separately.

1. Whether the respondents had complied with the writ court’s direction by reconsidering the petitioner’s claim and passing a reasoned order.

2. Whether the merits of the rejection order were to be determined in the contempt proceedings.

The court treated compliance with its earlier direction to consider the petitioner’s claim as the relevant inquiry in the contempt proceeding: the respondents’ passing of a reasoned and speaking order satisfied that direction, while the merits of the rejection could be challenged separately in accordance with law.

The court did not independently decide the application of the 1992 circular, the Bihar Government Servants Departmental Examination Exemption Rules, 2018, or Amresh Kumar Sinha; those were referred to in the respondents’ explanation of their decision.

The earlier writ order required the Director to consider the claim in light of the cited Supreme Court judgment; it did not, as described in this decision, direct that the claim be allowed.

The respondents produced a reasoned decision addressing the petitioner’s cadre, pay, examination status, and exemption application.

The court therefore found the direction had been complied with. It did not assess whether the rejection was substantively correct, leaving that question for a separate challenge.

It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law.