IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.275 of 2009 Kiran Devi wife of Sri Ranjit Kumar, resident of Village + P.O. Laxmipur, Police Station Barari, Katihar… … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. District Magistrate, Katihar, 4. District Superintendent of Education, Katihar, 5. District Education Officer, Katihar, 6. Block Education Extension Officer, Barari, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, 7. Mukhiya, Laxminpur Grampanchayat, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, 8. Panchayat Secretary, Laxmipur Grampanchayat, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, 9. Chairman, Sukh Subidha Samittee, Laxmipur Grampanchayat, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, 10. Manoj Kumar Singh son of Rajendra Prasad Singh, Resident of village Kuswaha Nayatola Bhaisdiara, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, 11.Mamta Kumari wife of not known to the petitioner, Shiksha Mitra, Primary School, Dasgram under Laxmipur Grampanchayat, Police Station Barari, District Katihar, For the Appellant: M/s Bimal Kumar and Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the S t a t e : Mr. S.A. Alam, S.C. 4 … 2 26.03.2009 The petitioner-appellant was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by the Mukhia of the Panchayat. The appointment order is dated 29.04.2005 and within two months the services of the petitioner- appellant were terminated on 08.06.2005. 2 The grievance of the appellant is that he was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 29.04.2005 and his appointment order was cancelled by order as contained in memo no. SSA/336 dated 26.06.2005. If that is so, the impugned order cannot be issued on 08.06.2005 before the approval of the District Superintendent of Education. Thereafter the petitioner- appellant approached this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court was of the opinion that the impugned order was issued prior to the approval of the District Superintendent of Education, which appeared to be the result of minor slip of pen. We are of the view that the appellant’s services were terminated by order dated 08.06.2005, but the appellant approached this Court only in 2009. Learned counsel for the State submitted that for resolving such disputes a Tribunal has been constituted at the district level of the State, therefore, the appellant may approach the Tribunal, if local order is against him. In view of the above circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 3 It is submitted that the appellant has filed an application before the Tribunal of the District. In that view of the matter, if an application has been filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, the same, in any event, may be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The appellant is also directed to produce a copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)