IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1017 of 2010 Suresh Prasad Yadav, S/O Uttam Lal Yadav, R/O Village Masuriya , P.O. Banaili, P.S. Sarsi, District- Purnia. ---- Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Purnia, District- Purnia. 3. The District Appointment Appellate, Purnia. 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Purnia, District- Purnia. 5. The Block Development Officer, K. Nagar, District- Purnia. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kohwara, District- Purnia. 7. Ranjan Kumar Ranjan, S/O Rajendra Prasad Yadav, R/O Village Jaikrishnapur Kataha, P.O. Baneili, P.S. - K. Nagar, District- Purnia. ------ Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 2. 22.6.2011 Heard Learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 17256 of 2009 ( Suresh Prasad Yadav V. The State of Bihar & Ors.), and is aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the order dated 30.10.2009, passed by the learned Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea, in Appeal Case Noa.68 of 2009, 270 of 2009 and 488 of 2009, have been upheld. The operative portion of the order of the learned Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow: 2 ^^ vr,o fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk ds }kjk fuxZr izek.k&i= dh tkWap djk;k tkuk vko”;d izrhr gksrk gS A mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa fuEukafdr vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS %& 01- lqjs”k izlkn ;kno firk Lo0 mRre yky ;kno ds fu;kstu dks rkRdkfyd izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A 02- lqjs”k izlkn ;kno ds LFkku ij vihykFkhZ jatu dqekj jatu dks fu;kstu laca/kh fu;ekuqdwy izfdz;k viukdj fu;kstu djus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS A 03- ;w0 ih0 lh0 lwph esa vksHkj jkbZfVax djus ,oa ;w0 ih0 lh0 djus ds ckn ;w0 ih0 lh0 lwph esa fu;kstu djus ds vfrfjDr rhu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke tksM+us ,oa ckn esa ;w0ih0lh0 lwph ij vfrfjfDr Mkd fVdV lkV dj fu;kstu laca/kh iapk;r ds vfHkys[k esa tky lkth djus ds vkjksi esa iz[k.M fodkl ink0 ds0 uxj iapk;r lfpo] vuar yky ;kno ds fo:) izkFkfedh ntZ djuk lqfuf”pr djsaxs A 04- iz[kaM fodkl ink0 ds0 uxj vfu;fer :Ik ls fu;ksftr f”k{kd lqjs”k izlkn ;kno ds }kjk ekuns; ds :Ik esa yh xbZ jkf”k dh fu;ekuqdwy olwyh iapk;r lfpo] vuar yky ;kno ds futh [kkrk ls djuk lqfuf”pr djsaxs A 05- vihykFkhZ fot; dqekj firk mRre yky ;kno ds vihy vkosnu dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS D;ksafd mUgksaus izf”kf{kr ,oa vizf”kf{kr vH;FkhZ ds :i esa nks vyx&vyx vkosnu fu;kstu bdkbZ dks lefiZr fd;k Fkk A 06- ftyk f”k{kk v/kh{kd] iwf.kZ;k fot; dqekj firk Lo0 mRre yky ;kno ds fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk ds }kjk fuxZr izek.k&i= dh tkWap djkdj muds fo:) vko”;d dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djuk lqfuf”pr djsaxs A ** After arguments at length, learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)