IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4973 of 2008 RUBY KUMARI, daughter of Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, resident of village – Ghuaki, P.O. Guru Bazar, Gram Panchayat Raj Rauniya, P.S. + Block – Barari, Districty – Katihar. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 4. The District Officer, Katihar, District – Katihar. 5. The District Development Commissioner, Katihar, District – Katihar. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, District – Katihar. 7. The Block Development Officer, Block – Barari, District – Katihar. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block – Barari, District – Katihar. 9. The Panchayat Secretaryh, Gram Panchayat Raj Raunia, P.S. + Block – Bararid, District – Katihar. 10. Smt. Samo Devi Wife of Sri Asharfi Rishi, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Raunia, P.S. + Block – Barari, District – Katihar. 11. Sri Arvind Kumar Son of Sri Krishna Prasad, village + P.S. + Gram Panchayat + Block – Barari, District – Katihar. … Respondents. ----------- 03/ 01.12.2009 I.A. No. 7263 of 2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 4973 of 2008 Initially petitioner had filed this writ application for quashing of the order 16.5.2007 contained in Memo No. 106 (Annexure-6), whereby the Block Education Extension Officer, Barari had restrained the petitioner from joining on the post. Further prayer was to cancel the selection of respondent no. 11 Arvind Kumar. It seems that during the pendency of the writ application petitioner moved before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar for similar relief and the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 28.7.2009 has cancelled the appointment of Arvind Kumar - 2 - and also directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post he was appointed, within a week. Petitioner’s grievance has already been redressed as Annexure-6 has been quashed by the Appellate Tribunal and the direction has also been issued to reinstate the petitioner. However, in the light of the direction of Appellate Tribunal, petitioner has not been allowed to give his joining on the post. It goes without saying that once a direction has been issued by the Appellate Tribunal holding that petitioner’s appointment is valid and the appointment of respondent no. 11 has been cancelled, there is no reason for not allowing the petitioner to join on the post. This application is disposed of. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)