IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2375 of 2010 MUKESH KUMAR S/O LATE RAM DEO CHOUDHARY R/OVILLAGE BANGRI,P.O. BIRAHIMA BAZAR,P.S.BARURAJ,DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR ……………..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES TIRHUT DIVISION,MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR AT MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER,PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE PAROO,P.S.PAROO,DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR ……………..RESPONDENTS ----------- 02 07.12.2010 Petitioner is the son of the erst while employee, namely, Ram Deo choudhary, who was supposed to be an employee initially appointed under the Health Department. Post was that of a basic health worker. Appointment related to the year 1980. Subsequently, large scale termination took place of such appointed persons which included the father of the present petitioner. Matter travelled to the court. Large number of writ applications came to be disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities of the State to constitute a committee to consider the cases of all such persons who were dismissed from services in the above stated background. A committee of five persons was set up. Issues were examined and committee rejected the case of the claimant holding that they were not legally appointed persons on the very face of the finding. Thereafter, the recommendation or the 2 finding of the committee was again challenged in yet another proceeding which ended up before a Division Bench which is the case of State of Bihar vs. Sohan Rai and others reported in 2010 (2) PLJR, 397. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by constituting one man committee to go into such matter and look into the cases of those candidates who were before the court. So far as present petitioner is concerned or the case of his father is concerned, he was not before the Division Bench or before the learned single Judge at that stage of time and since he died on 30th of April, 2009, now the son wants to pursue the matter. In the above circumstances and the many rounds of litigations which was generated by virtue of dismissal of such employees including the father of the petitioner this Court has limitation in passing any direction with regard to validity or the legality of the removal of the father of the petitioner from the post. Since one man committee will only look into cases of those petitioners who were before the L.P.A. Bench, this Court cannot pass any direction in this regard as well. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, this writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. Shahzad ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)