IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10261 of 2007 SATYA PRAKASH OJHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 30/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Siksha Mitra in the year, 2005. This appointment was contractual in nature for eleven months only. After the initial period of eleven months the contract could be renewed for another eleven months followed by another eleven months or it may not have been renewed. This was to depend upon the performance of the candidate during the initial period of eleven months. Therefore, any claim beyond the period of the first eleven months is based on an inchoate right which may have fructified or may not have fructified. No relief in a writ application can be founded on an inchoate right which may and may not fructify. The contention of the petitioner that by annexure-1, an order dated 4.1.2007, his grievances for denial of appointment to him wrongly have been found justified when respondent No.11 was appointed to his prejudice, shall be of no help to the petitioner. The denial 2 of appointment to him is one aspect, the illegal appointment of respondent No.11 is another. The claim of the petitioner is based on an inchoate right. That subsequent justification was found in his claim may not bring any relief to him, but shall visit respondent No.11 with the consequences, if she continues in service. This writ application is, therefore, disposed with directions to respondent No.7 to examine the matter with regard to the continuance of respondent No.11 and take appropriate consequential action insofar as any illegal continuance of an appointee concerned. Let such consideration be done and appropriate action taken after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)