IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11891 of 2005 ARVIND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 10/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not consider it proper to record the facts except to the extent necessary for disposal of the application. The petitioner claims to have been appointed in response to an advertisement and selection process when his name was empanelled and he was appointed in Education Department when he was posted in a Project School. His services came to be terminated allegedly on grounds of illegality/irregularity in the appointment. The petitioner represented to the Secretary of the Department against the same who stayed the operation of the order of termination and directed a fresh enquiry by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Pursuant to this report, his services were terminated again. The latter developments have taken place during the pendency of the writ application before this Court. During the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner already filed an appeal on 18.7.2007 against the fresh order of termination before the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar at Patna who is stated to have stayed the operation of the order of termination vide his order dated 18.3.2007. In view of the petitioner having already availed the alternative forum during the pendency of the writ application in which - 2 - the interim orders have been passed in his favour, there is no occasion for this Court to proceed with the writ application further at this stage. The writ application is accordingly disposed with directions to the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar to decide the appeal of the petitioner preferably with a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event that he proposes to pass order prejudicial to the petitioner, he shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner next raises the question of arrears of salary for the period ‘September,2002 till July, 2007’. In view of the nature of the controversy as noticed above when the respondents have themselves stayed the termination order on more than one occasion if the petitioner makes an application during the pendency of the appeal for certain arrears of salary, this Court requires the Director, Secondary Education to examine the claim on facts and pass appropriate orders in that regard. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )