Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20 September, 2002 in C.W.J.C. No. (sic) Vijay Shankar Verma & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2. It may be placed on record that earlier also on the same issues there were three other writ petitions, i.e, C.W.J.C. Nos. 2803 of 1993, 11312 of 1996 and 9556 of 2001. Whatever was the order coming out of the aforesaid three writ petitions, a contempt application was filed against the State respondents. This was M.J.C. No. 2527 of 1998. 3. The contention of the petitioners appellants who did not succeed in the writ petitions in receiving an order that the matter relating to their employment to the Government Press whether at Gulzarbagh or Gaya be examined was negatived by the learned Judge. The submissions are to the effect that the fact that the petitioners are being denied deployment or employment is contrary to the rules of recruitment and promotion of subordinate non-clerical (industrial) staff in the Government Press at Gulzarbagh and Gaya. 4. Not to be ignored is the observalions of the defence taken in the contempt application to the effect that in so far as the Government Press at Gulzarbagh and Gaya (the two available in the State of Bihar) are concerned, the machines have become obsolete and with declining productivity and rising costs the Government has to freeze the vacancies and consult the National Productivity Council to examine the functioning of the Government Press, may be after the direction of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11312 of 1996. 5. The Government is entitled to go into the aspect whether it finds a particular industrial establishment uneconomical or for that matter go into the process of disinvestment, may be the petitioner had been trained at the Government and, in effect, they have claimed that they are rained under the Apprentice Act, 1961. This in itself will not make out a case that the petitioners receive a direction by a writ of mandamus that they be appointed at the Government Press. 6. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge on the writ petition. 7. Dismissed.