Judgment 1. The petitioner complains that the order dated 15.2.2002 has not been obeyed by the respondents. 2. The relevant part of the order dated 15.2.2002 reads thus: "Considering the nature of appoint- fnent, made on daily wage basis until further orders, I am not inclined to grant any relief or interfere in the matter except to observe that if the sanctioned post of Clerk in the Bihar State Pharmacy Council is available, the authority should take a decision regarding filling up the post and in the event of a positive decision, advertise the post and make regular appointment. At that stage, the case of the petitioner may also be considered subject to his satisfactory past service experience giving one time age relaxation to the extent of period of service rendered by him." 3. A perusal of the afore-noticed directives would show that this Court did not grant any relief to the petitioner as his nature of appointment was found to be of daily wager. However, the Court made observation that if the sanctioned post of Clerk in the Bihar State Pharmacy Council was available, the authority should take a decision regarding filling up the post and, in the event of a positive decision, advertise the post and make regular appointment. It was also observed that at that stage, the case of the petitioner may also be considered subject to his satisfactory past service giving one time age relaxation to the extent of period of service rendered by him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that there had not been any advertisement for filling up the post of Clerk on regular basis. 5. In response to this contempt application, a show cause has been filed by respondent nos. 2, 6 and 7, It is stated that advertisement for filling up the posts of Clerk was made in the daily newspaper and also on the notice board and for that the petitioner and many other candidates applied. It is further stated that the appointment committee called for the petitioner for taking part in the written test as well as in the interview by giving age relaxation as per the directives of this Court. The petitioner appeared in the written as well as in the Interview before the Appointment Commitiee but he obtained low marks with poor performance and, therefore, he was not appointed. 6. The petitioner appeared in the written as well as in the Interview before the Appointment Commitiee but he obtained low marks with poor performance and, therefore, he was not appointed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner appeared in the written test and Interview but he would submit that the advertisement was not for regular appointment. 7. We are afraid, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The order having been fully complied with, no question of contempt arises. The M.J.C. stands disposed of.