IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12949 of 2006 Kumari Krishna, wife of Sri Harideo Yadav, aged about 31 years, resident of village Bhachhi, P.S. Baheri, District Darbhanga at present posted as Shiksha Mitra at Madhya Vidyalaya, Ujjaina in the district of Darbhanga … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. Director Education, Darbhanga 4. Block Education Extension Officer, Baheri, District Darbhanga 5. Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhachhi Prakhand Baheri, District Darbhanga 6. Headmaster, Madhya Vidyalaya, Ujjaina, District Darbhanga 7. Madhu Raj Kumari, D/o Sri Baijnath Rai, resident of village Ujjaina, P.S. District Darbhanga … Respondents ----------- 2. 1.7.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order of engagement of respondent no.7 on the post of Shiksha Mitra after her removal from the said post, this Court in view of the recent Government circular dated 14.5.2009 would allow the prayer of Counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this writ application in order to enable the petitioner to approach the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Darbhanga to file a complaint with regard to her removal and engagement of respondent 2 no.7 on the post of Shiksha Mitra and her eventual absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. It is made clear that if the petitioner would file her complaint within a period of one month from today the authority shall decide the matter on merits without putting the petitioner to rigors of limitation, inasmuch as the petitioner’s writ application has remained pending before this Court from 30.10.2006. The authority will be required to not only afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also respondent no.7 before passing any final order which must be done within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint by the petitioner alongwith a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and has simply allowed the petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy which became available to her during the pendency of this writ application. 3 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/