IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2128 of 2009 SUNITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 12.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner as against the order of her termination dated 30.4.2008 is confined to some factual error as with regard to roaster point. The petitioner with the help of some roaster arrangement, as contained in Annexure 6, would contend that the finding arrived in the impugned order that the post in question was a reserved post for female of Scheduled Caste (Urdu unit) is absolutely incorrect, inasmuch as the said post was reserved for female of Scheduled Caste. Counsel says that the petitioner belongs to that category and therefore, the reason for his removal is bad. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, says that these factual aspects can be gone into more effectively before the appellate forum which has been created by the State Government. Considering the aforementioned 2 submissions, this Court is of the opinion that in the first instance if the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, she must exhaust the same. As a matter of fact the dispute, as noted above, being limited to a very very narrow zone, can definitely be decided at an early date. That being so, this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of one month from today and in the event such an application is filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the same must be disposed of within a period of three months from its receipt by a speaking order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/