Order S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for initiating proceeding for contempt against the contemnor opposite party for wilful violation of order dated 22nd May' 98, passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 876/97 and analogous cases. 2. Admittedly in pursuance of Combined Engineering Admission Test, 1996, petitioner and some others appeared. Some persons thereafter moved in C.W.J.C. No. 7779/96 and other analogous cases, alleging mal practice and bungling in the said test. This Court, after going through some of the answer books, by interim order dated 20th August'96, while prima facie found that some of the answers given by successful candidates were verbatim reproduction of the so called memorandum of model answers in physics, directed to produce remaining answer books of successful candidates as well as 100 answer sheets of unsuccessful candidates of each category. The Court further ordered that the admission made or if to be made are subject to the result of those cases. Before disposal of C.W.J.C. No. 7779/96 and other analogous cases, petitioner was admitted in B.I.T. Sindri on 8th November' 96. Subsequently, order was passed on 17th July' 97 in the aforesaid writ petitions, by which this Court ordered for cancellation of the admission of respondents of those cases, including the petitioner, and directed to hand over the case to C.B.I. for investigation. Altogether, admission of 245 students including the petitioner was cancelled. 3. Against the order dated 17th July' 97, the State of Bihar and various affected students including the petitioner preferred different letters patent appeals (L.P.A. No. 876/97 and other analogous cases), which were disposed of on 22nd May' 98. The Division Bench of this Court ordered that till truth is investigated and C.B.I. submits charge sheets against the concerned persons, status quo as on 20th August' 96, should be maintained. Relevant portion of the order, reads as follows: "We have already observed in the preceding paragraphs that in pursuance of the direction of the learned Writ Court, though investigation by the CBI is in progress but the submissions of the examinees have been cancelled and yet the investigation has not culminated by filing a charge-sheet against the examinees, Minister or other officials said to have been involved in this matter. Therefore, ultimately if in investigation nothing is found against the examinees so as to make them liable for prosecution, in our opinion, in that event, possibility of considerable irreparable harm to them can not be overruled and to compensate that harm, clock can not be set back. Hence, in order to prevent that irrepairable harm, in our view, it will be desirable in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience that till the truth is investigated and finally not revealed by the C.B.I. by submitting charge-sheet against the concerned persons, the admission of the examinees, so cancelled is liable to be remedied by restoring' the status-quo ante as it was on 20.8.96 by the interim order passed by the Writ Court on that day meaning thereby that the admission of the concerned students in the respective Colleges shall be subject to the presentation of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance by the Court concerned by framing charges against them. Thus, as a result thereof, the admission of the concerned examinees is relegated to the stage of the interim order dated 20.8.96 passed by the Writ Court and shall continue till the charge-sheet is submitted against them and pursuant to the charge-sheet, charges are framed by the Court concerned against them. However, it is made clear that during the course of investigation, the concerned examinees and all other concerned persons shall co-operate with the investigation and shall make themselves available to the Investigating agency for interrogation etc. if and when required by them." 4. According to the petitioner, after decision of Division Bench aforesaid, Opposite Party No.2, Dr. Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Director of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar directed all the Principals and Directors of Engineering Colleges to take readmission of the students so cancelled and for its compliance. Though, in pursuance of such direction of Director, Science and Technology, students of all other Engineering Colleges were allowed to pursue their studies with 1996-97 batch students but only B.I.T., Sindri decided to allow them for study with the 1998 Session admitted candidates. In this connection, reliance was placed on the letter dated 23rd July' 98 issued by Opposite Party No.3, Shri R.N. Singh, Director, B.I.T., Sindri, by which giving reference of Court's order, petitioner has been asked to report the Hostel Superintendent, Hostel No.7 on 1st August' 98 with cross demand draft of Rs.1800/- for Hostel and maintenance fund etc. In this connection, reliance was placed on the letter dated 23rd July' 98 issued by Opposite Party No.3, Shri R.N. Singh, Director, B.I.T., Sindri, by which giving reference of Court's order, petitioner has been asked to report the Hostel Superintendent, Hostel No.7 on 1st August' 98 with cross demand draft of Rs.1800/- for Hostel and maintenance fund etc. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the position of petitioner and other students whose admissions were earlier cancelled should have been restored to its original position. They should have been allowed to attend classes along with 1996 batch and not with 1998 batch students. It was submitted that the petitioner and others having been relegated to the situation as obtained on 20th August' 96, after Division Bench order, they should have been treated as students taken to the 2nd year batch, other batch mates having completed one year of study during the pendency of the writ petition, after appearing 1st year examination. Reliance was placed on examples of similarly situated Institutes like R.I.T., Jamshedpur; B.C.E., Patna; Bihar College of Engineering, Bhagalpur, M.I.T., Muzaffarpur; Regional Engineering College, Surat, Karnataka Engineering College. Surathcal, Karnataka; Regional Engineering College, Warangal (A.P.) etc. where students identically situated as petitioner, were allowed to take classes in the 2nd year along with 1996 batchmates. It was alleged that inspite of order dated 22nd March' 98, passed by Division Bench in L.P.A. 876/97 and repeated representations preferred by petitioner along with others, neither opposite party no.2 has given any further direction to Opposite party No.3, nor the Opposite party no.3 allowed the students to pursue their studies with the 1996 batch students. 6. Counsel for the State obtained instruction and filed a show cause each, one on behalf of Opposite party no.2 and another on behalf of Opposite party no.3 respectively before initiation of proceeding. In pursuance of Court's order dated 4th January'99, followed by order dated 15th February' 99, a supplementary show cause has been filed by Opposite Party No.3, Mr. R.N. Singh, Director, B.I.T., Sindri, who also remained present in the Court on 9th March'99, during the course of argument. In pursuance of Court's order dated 4th January'99, followed by order dated 15th February' 99, a supplementary show cause has been filed by Opposite Party No.3, Mr. R.N. Singh, Director, B.I.T., Sindri, who also remained present in the Court on 9th March'99, during the course of argument. In the show cause reply, while unqualified apology has been sought for by the Opposite parties, it is stated that they cannot think even in dream to disobey or flout the order of this Court and have acted strictly by following the Court's directions and orders passed on 17th July' 97 and 22nd May' 98. In the first show cause of Opposite party no.2, while it was mentioned that at least 75 percent of the lactures are required to be completed for being sent up to appear in the University examination held every year for each class, apart from passing of periodical examination and performance of sessional work and sessional examination, stand was taken that the petitioner had not completed such 75 per cent of lectures. In the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party no.3, in pursuance of Court's order, total attendance of petitioner has been shown which is more than 75 percent except in respect of total number of experiments in the Physics paper. It is stated that petitioner appeared in the first periodical examination and obtained certain marks therein. There are two periodical examinations of 15 marks each (total 30 marks), apart from University examination of 70 marks (total comes to 100 marks) and a student has to obtain a minimum of 35 per cent of the total marks. Because of cancellation of admission of petitioner and others, they could not appear in the 2nd periodical examination, nor could appear in the 1st year final examination along with their batch-mates. The petitioner's attendance in theory paper together with experimental/sessional work/workshop practice in a diploma firm is much less than the requisite percentage of lectures to be attended, have been shown at Paragraph No.14 to the supplementary affidavit. 7. Mr. R.N. Singh, Opposite Party No.3 while personally described the difficulty in admitting a student straightway in the 2nd year, informed the Court that under the Regulation, no student who has passed 1st year examination can be admitted to the 2nd year. 7. Mr. R.N. Singh, Opposite Party No.3 while personally described the difficulty in admitting a student straightway in the 2nd year, informed the Court that under the Regulation, no student who has passed 1st year examination can be admitted to the 2nd year. A candidate who fails upto three subjects in the 1st year examination, are admitted to higher 2nd year class and allowed to attend the classes with clear stipulation that they are to clear the carryover papers prior to promotion to the next higher class (3rd year). Passing of aforesaid examination is necessary, apart from the aggregate of attendance, passing of one or other periodical examination etc. for the purpose of allowing a student to appear in the final examination of a particular year. It was submitted that the petitioners and others have been treated to be of 1996 batch but as they cannot be admitted straightway to the 2nd year, have been asked to attend the 1st year class, which is continuing in respect of 1998 batch students. 8. Admittedly, the next final examination of the first year (1998 Batch) is scheduled to be held in the month of April, 1999. 9. From the aforesaid facts pleaded by the parties and the show cause preferred by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, I hold that there, is no deliberate wilful violation of Court's orders made by the Opposite parties and thereby, there is no occasion to initiate any proceeding for contempt against them. However, this order will not stand in the way of petitioner to appear in the 1st year examination, schedule to start from April' 99, nor will stand in her way to obtain any clarification from the Division Bench, which passed order in L.P.A. No. 876/97. 10. This M.J.C. application, accordingly, stands disposed of.