IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16828 of 2010 ARUN KUMAR RAVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 10.05.2011 On of the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order which was obtained by Satyendra Kumar in C.W.J.C No. 10953 of 2006 was without impleading the petitioner as a party respondent and without hearing him. The Court directed the District Magistrate to go into the issue raised by the said Satyendra Kumar in which it is not denied that petitioner was also heard but he was not allowed to place all facts before the District Magistrate. The findings therefore, given both by the High Court as well as consequential order of the District Magistrate to that extent stand vitiated. The Court would not like to comment on the circumstances under which the order was passed in C.W.J.C No. 10953 of 2006 because this Court cannot sit in review over that order and go into this facts whether petitioner was heard, made a party or not made a party. Cutting short all such facts the issue relates to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which does not exist after 1.7.2006. If that be so whatever be the background to the present dispute the Tribunal has done no wrong by refusing to appoint the petitioner on a non-existent post. There is no occasion for the Court to go into all the allegations made in the writ since petitioner cannot be appointed on the post 2 of Panchayat Siksha Mitra now. Writ is dismissed. Prakash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)