IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11356 of 2009 Anil Kumar, S/o Sri Ram Japo Yadav, Resident of Village Laxaminia, P.S. Bithan, Dist. Samastipur. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Samastripur, Dist. Samastipur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dist. Samastipur. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hasanpur (Bithan), Dist. Samastipur. 6. Ahilya Devi, W/o Birendra Yadav, Resident of Village Chhechhani, P.S. Bithan, Dist. Samastipur. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Narpa of Bithan Block, Dist. Samastipur. 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dist. Samastipur. --------- Respondents With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11357 of 2009 Kaleshawar Ram, S/o Sri Hakkar Ram, Resident of Village Narpa, P.S. Bithan, Dist. Samastipur. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Samastripur, Dist. Samastipur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dist. Samastipur. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hasanpur (Bithan), Dist. Samastipur. 6. Ahilya Devi, W/o Birendra Yadav, Resident of Village Chhechhani, P.S. Bithan, Dist. Samastipur. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Narpa of Bithan Block, Dist. Samastipur. 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Narpa of Bihan Block, Dist. Samastipur. --------- Respondents ----------------- 6 08.12.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioners in these two writ applications have a grievance with regard to payment of their salary against the post of Panchayat Teacher and that for such grievance, there is a statutory alternative remedy before the 2 District Teachers Appellate Authority, these two writ applications are held to be not maintainable. When this part of the order was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw these writ applications in order to enable the petitioners to move before the District Teachers Appellate Authority. That being so, both of these writ applications are permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to move the concerned Authority, which will decide the case of the petitioners on merit and would not non-suit them on the ground of delay/limitation, if any. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)