JUDGMENT A.K. Ganguly, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition at flag 'N' has been filed by the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna (Respondent No. 2) for extension of time which discloses an unfortunate state of affair. 3. By a judgment dated 15th May, 1996, this Court directed that the entire selection process in connection with the appointment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge from the quota of the members of the Bar in accordance with the relevant rules must be completed by the administrative side of the Patna High Court by 31st August, 1996. There was, therefore, a gap of about three and a half months between the date of judgment and the date which was fixed for completion of the entire selection process. Today an application has been filed by respondent no. 2 stating therein that 1st September, 1996 has been fixed as the date for holding of written examination and a prayer has been made for extension of time before this Court. 4. From a perusal of the application for extension of time, especially paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, this Court does not find any explanation worth the name. There is no mention of the steps which the authorities have taken after the delivery of the aforesaid judgment The averments in paragraphs 4 and 5 are totally vague. 5. When an application is made for extension of time, the parties seeking an extension must disclose before the Court precisely the steps which were taken for complying with the direction contained in the judgment within the time given in the judgment Except making certain vague statements, the averments in paragraphs 4 and 5 are totally silent about the precise steps taken by the respondent concerned. 6. This shows that the authorities concerned have taken the direction of this Court very lightly and casually. This conduct on the part of the authorities is condemned by this Court in no un-certain terms. 7. The matter of greater concern is that even without obtaining the extension of time from this Court, 1st September, 1996 has been fixed as the date for holding written examination. It is obvious that 1st September, 1996 is beyond 31st August, 1996. Therefore, without obtaining any order from this Court, the respondent authorities have extended the time. This shows the total disrespect to the orders of this Court. It is obvious that 1st September, 1996 is beyond 31st August, 1996. Therefore, without obtaining any order from this Court, the respondent authorities have extended the time. This shows the total disrespect to the orders of this Court. If this is the way how respect is shown by the administrative side of This High Court to a judicial order passed by this Court, this Court wonders how rule of law can be maintained even within the High Court itself. This Court expresses its deepest anguish in the matter. 8. However, having regard to the over-riding consideration of public interest and also the interest of various persons who are to appear in the examination, this Court grants further three months time, as prayed for in paragraph 6 of the petition at flag 'N', from 31st August, 1996 for completion of the entire selection process. Therefore, the said selection process must come to an end by 2nd December, 1996. 9. It is made clear that no further time for extension will be granted. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is directed to produce the notice which has been issued on behalf of respondent no. 2 fixing the date of examination on 1st September, 1996 at 2.15 P.M. today. 11. The petition at flag 'N' is allowed accordingly. Later Order passed at 2.15 P.M 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 along with Mr. D.G.R. Pattanaik, Joint Registrar (Establishment), Patna High Court is present in Court. 13. Mr. Pattanaik hands over to this Court an insertion in an English daily Hindustan Times' dated 10th August 1996 which is a notice to the effect that the written test will be held on 1st September, 1996 at Science College and Patna College for appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, direct from the Bar. 14. It is, therefore, clear that on or before the 10th August, 1996, without obtaining extension of the order of this Court dated 15th May, 1996, the said notice was issued. 15. The application for extension was affirmed only on 26th August, 1996 and thereafter the same was placed for hearing and is being disposed of by the order passed today. It is, therefore, clear that on or before the 10th August, 1996, without obtaining extension of the order of this Court dated 15th May, 1996, the said notice was issued. 15. The application for extension was affirmed only on 26th August, 1996 and thereafter the same was placed for hearing and is being disposed of by the order passed today. This shows that even before an application for extension was affirmed for obtaining extension of the order dated 15th May, 1996, the aforesaid insertion was made on the administrative side of the High Court by the Registrar General, Patna High Court under "Orders of the High Court". So the time granted by a judicial order by this Court thus stands extended by an insertion in the newspaper at the instance of administrative side. This present application for extension filed long after that before this Court is nothing but an empty ritual. 16. This Court is, therefore, constrained to observe that the aforesaid state of affairs, to say the least, certainly is not a desirable one. Such action on the administrative side of the High Court is neither conducive to fair administration of justice nor can such an act inspire any confidence of the people at large in the administration of justice by this High Court. 17. However, in order not to prolong this matter any further and acting under self imposed restraint and in consonance with judicial discipline this Court chosses not to proceed any further in the matter. This Court, however, expresses its strong displeasure about the manner in which the administrative side of the High Court has acted in this matter.