IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.925 of 2003 Parmanand Jha, aged about 50 years, son of Late Saryug Jha, Resident of Village Vidulia, P.S. Anarathadi, District Madhubani, working as a Headmaster, vaiye Prathmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Vidulia, Madhubani. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Special Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Madhubani. 4. Sudhir Kumar Jha, Address not known. ------- Respondents ----------- 3 02.07.2010 Heard Mr. Rajnikant Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and counsel for the State of Bihar. Despite service of notice, no one appears for the respondent no.4. The prayer of the writ petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1, That this application is being filed praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, not to pay the salary to the respondents, no.4 for the year 1999-2000 appointed against the post of science teacher in Vaiye Prathmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, 2 Vidulia, under the schemes of Human Resources Development Department, New Delhi, for modernization of Sanskrit schools in Bihar and as shown in the lists among the name of 86 Sanskrit schools (Ann-5) and the name of appointed science teachers, at serial no. 27 the name of aforesaid school and the name of appointed Science teacher (resp no.- 4) is present, while till to-day no appointment has been made against the said post and no recommendation sent to the Sanskrit Shiksha Board by the Headmaster of the school and hence, is illegal and not valid in the eye of law and direction to the respondents to reconstitute the managing committee, so that the interview may be taken and on that basis appointment may be done against the aforesaid post.” As a matter of fact, considering the aforementioned prayer, this Court on 18.2.2003 had passed a long reasoned order, which also being relevant, is quoted herein below:- “This writ petition has been filed by the Headmaster of Vaiye Prathmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Vidulia, district Madhubani for a restraint order against payment of salary to respondent no.4, Sudhir Kumar Jha. It is said that said Sudhir Kumar Jha was never appointed as Teacher by the Managing Committee of the School and 3 therefore he is not entitled to salary. Learned Government Pleader states that said Sudhir Kumar Jha has been appointed and posted by the order of the Special Director, Secondary Education vide letter no. 316 dated 19.6.2002 contained in Annexure 5. From perusal of Annexure 5 it appears that the Special Director appointed 28 persons including respondent Sudhir Kumar Jha and posted them in different schools. In this manner Sudhir Kumar Jha was posted in Vaiye Prathmic Sah Madhya Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Vidulia district Madhubani. It would thus appear that the petitioner is questioning the validity of the aforesaid order of the Special Director and in effect questioning his jurisdiction. He has not approached the authority i.e. the Special Director in this regard though he seems to have filed an application before the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Sikchha Board on 12.12.2002. It appears from the submission of the State Counsel that one Science teacher has been appointed and posted in different Sanskrit Schools under some central scheme and if that is so, what remains to be considered is the manner in which respondent no.4 was appointed. Issue notice to respondent no.4. Talbana etc. for which must be filed within one week, failing which this petition shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Meanwhile it is clarified that notwithstanding pendency of this case it is open to the petitioner to approach the 4 Special Director and present his case against the appointment/posting of the said respondent and in the event the Special Director proposes to pass any order he may do so after giving notice to Sudhir Kumar Jha. The case may be taken up in due course.” Today when the case has been taken up in due course, Mr. Pathak would inform this Court that as per the observations made by this Court, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Government, which was disposed of by the Special Director, wherein, the appointment and approval of the respondent no.4 was again approved by rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the order of the appointment of respondent no.4 by the Managing Committee and its approval by the Bihar State Sanskrit Siksha Board has been affirmed by the appellate authority, the petitioner will have a different cause of action for which he may file a fresh writ application assailing he aforementioned order of the Special Director passed during pendency of this writ application. In fact, no useful purpose would be served in continuing 5 with this writ application. Therefore, while leaving all the issues open for the petitioner to be raised in any subsequent proceedings, this application is permitted to be withdrawn. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)