IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4694 of 2007 Rudranand Yadav, son of Satyadeo Yadav, resident of village Bhelwa, P.O. Babhni, Anchal Singheshwar West, District Madhepura … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura 5. The Headmaster cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Bhelwa, Anchal Sigheshwar West, District Madhepura … Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 7.9.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The respondents as with regard to the following prayer of the petitioner: “(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary since 28.12.1988 and also the current salary in view of the office order passed by respondent no.4 vide Memo No. 63-6 dated 18.7.1993 (Annexure 4) by which after proper verification of the service of the petitioner salary of the petitioner was directed to be paid with effect from 28.12.1988.” have explained in the counter affidavit that the order according approval of payment of salary to the petitioner was based on fraudulent exercise and as such, the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of salary. In this regard the respondents have produced the certificate of mark-sheet of the petitioner of his Matriculation Examination showing his date of birth to be 2nd January, 1959 which would make him almost aged about 11 years when he is said to have been appointed on the post of teacher in 2 Primary School even when he is said to have passed Matriculation Examination in March, 1975. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner had made an attempt to obtain an approval by playing fraud and when an explanation was asked from him on 19.10.2009 vide letter of the D.S.E., Madhepura dated 19.10.2009 he has not submitted his reply till date. All these facts in the counter affidavit were made known to the counsel for the petitioner by serving him a copy of the counter affidavit on 18.8.2011, whereafter this Court had also allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to file his rejoinder to the counter affidavit in the order dated 19.8.2011. There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit nor counsel for the petitioner has appeared today. It, thus, becomes clear that the petitioner after being caught hold by his neck has abandoned his claim and has not pressed this application. That being so, this application is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to the respondents to take further action in continuation to the show cause notice issued by the D.S.E., Madhepura. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/