IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3609 of 2009 with CWJC No. 3655 of 2009 KIRAN DEVI, Member, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur-cum- Contractor, Block no. 29, Mushahari (Muzaffarpur) ...Petitioner in both cases. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Chair Person, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. 6. Sri Nageshwar Mandal , Junior Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. ...Respondents in both cases. 2 8.4.2009 Petitioner in both the cases was appointed as an agent by virtue of being a Municipal Commissioner for overseeing execution of various municipal works. Advances were made to the petitioner in that capacity for the work, in question. It appears that the government took a policy decision that no Municipal Commissioner would be given work related to municipality. In view of the aforesaid, the Chairman of Zila Parishad has removed the petitioner and directed that the work would be completed by Junior Engineer. Petitioner asserts that the appointment of the petitioner was made prior to communication of the government policy in that regard and she was removed without issuance of show cause notice in that regard. This renders the exercise invalid. In my view this is not correct. Before the petitioner can maintain a writ petition ,for the relief, as sought for, petitioner must establish a right and show that a civil wrong is being committed. Petitioner got the said engagement by virtue of office she held and as a matter of policy decision of the government, it was decided to the contrary and as such she was divested with this - 2 - appointment. Admittedly, for the said work, petitioner is not entitled to any remuneration but only has to act as a Supervisor and a agent on behalf of Zila Parishad. This does not create any right in the petitioner. There being no consideration, there was no contract much less an enforceable contract. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, petitioner has no right nor a cause to pursue. The writ petitions are thus not maintainable and are dismissed as such. singh (Navaniti Pd. Singh)