IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3333 of 2007 SARITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 15/05/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the application to avail his remedies before the Appellate Authority. The claim is based on a denial of appointment on the post of Shikshamitra in the year- 2003. If the petitioner was not appointed, the question of any renewal of his contract of the initial period of 11 months does not arise. He, therefore, had a inchoate right. On 1.7.2006 new Rule was enacted relating to appointment of Panchayat Shikshaks. Those who were continuing on the post of Shikshamitra on that date later on acquired that status by operation of law. The petitioner is not one of them. Clearly he has no surviving claim for appointment on the grievance of denial of appointment as a Shikshamitra in the year- 2003. However, that is a completely different issue. The other issues sought to be raised of illegal appointments of Shikshamitras made in the year-2003 and who have continued on the basis of such illegal appointment to acquire the status of a Panchayat 2 Shikshak on 1.7.2006 is an entirely different issue. If the initial appointment as Shikshamitra of such persons was bad, the cause of action to the petitioner to assail their appointment continues when they acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak on 1.7.2006. Circumscribed by that limitation the Appellate Authority shall have to decide grievance of the petitioner vis-à-vis such persons who, he alleges, were illegally appointed as Shikshamitras in 2003 and wrongly acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak on 1.7.2006. Let such consideration be done after due notice and opportunity to such concerned persons, preferably within a period fixed by the notification under Rule-2 creating the Appellate Authority. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)