IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12734 of 2006 MRITUNJAY PRASAD CHOUDHARY, son of late Bhupendra Prasad Choudhary, Mohalla Siyaram Nagar (Bhikhanpur), P.S. Eshakchak, District Bhagalpur at present working as Headmaster, Middle School, Ranitalab, Anchal Sabour, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur 5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bhagalpur 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur 8. The Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur … Respondents ----------- 10. 6.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to subsequent development as explained in the second interlocutory application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the prayer portion of this application, I.A.No. 1033/2009 is allowed and the same is treated to be the part of the writ application. From the averments of the interlocutory application it would be clear that during the pendency of this writ application the services of the petitioner were terminated under the decision taken by 2 the District Education Establishment Committee by an order communicated through its Secretary i.e. District Superintendent of Education dated 14.7.2008. The said order in terms of the Disciplinary Control and Appeal Rules of the teachers of Primary school being an appealable order, the petitioner has also filed an appeal on 4.8.2008, as contained in Annexure 13, which is said to be pending. The respondents have filed rejoinder to I.A.No. 1033/2009 but this fact regarding pendency of the appeal as specifically asserted in paragraph 15 of the interlocutory application has not been denied, rather in paragraph 18 of the rejoinder filed by the State it has been shown to be a matter of record. Once this position becomes clear that the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority by way of statutory alternative remedy, the prayer made in this writ application as with regard to setting aside the order of termination cannot be adjudicated till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3 As noted above, the appeal has remained pending over a period of two years and therefore, this Court would direct the appellate authority to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order by a reasoned order after considering the plea raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/