IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5882 of 1996 CHANDESHWAR CHOUDHARY son of Late Ram Prakash Choudhary, resident of village Budh Nagar, Police Station Nanpur District Sitamarhi at present residing at Mohalla Chitragupta Nagar, Police Station Patrakar Nagar Town and District Patna…. Petitioner. Versus 1. DIRECTOR,SEC.EDUCATION , Ambrapali Bhawan Baliy Road, Patna- 800001. 2. Managing Committee, Ram Mohun Roy Seminary, through its Secretary, Khazanchi Road, Police Station Pirbahore Town and District Patna-800004. 3. The Governing Body, Sewa Sansad, through its President, 210/6 Vidhan Sarani, Calcutta-700006. 4. Shri Kamla Pati Singh (Advocate) President Ram Mohun Roy Seminary, residing at Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 12, Patna.8000016. 5. Shri Sumanto Niyogi, Secretary Ram Mohun Roy Seminary, resident of Matri SAdan, Rajendra Nagar Road No. 13/B, …..P.S. Kadamkuan, Patna-16. 6. Shri Nanhe Prasad, Advocate Enquiry Officer, resident of C/38, Samta Sadan, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Police Station Kankarbagh, Patna-20. 7. Shri Kalyan Kumar Poddar son of late Kshetra Mohan Poddar residing at Ram Mohun Roy Seminary Campus, Khazanchi Road, Patna-4. 8. Shri Ramgati Sinha son of late Ramlakhan Sinha Vice-Principal, Ram Mohun Roy Seminary, Khazanchi Road, P.S. Pirbahore residing at Mohalla Bacca Bari, Bhikhana Pahari Patna-4. 9. Bihar School Service Board, Bihar Patna. … Respondents. with CWJC No.4412 of 1998 YATINDRA NATH SINHA s/o Late Shiv Nandan Prasad resident of Bum Bum Sweet House ( Upper Floor), Bhikhnapahari, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna- 800004…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar School Service Board, Patna- through Secretary. 3. The Chairman, Bihar School Service Board, Patna. 4. The Governing Body of the Sadhan Ashram Sewa Sansad 210/6/Vidhan Sarani, Calcutta 700006. 5. The Managing Committee of the Rammohan Roy Seminarry, Khajanchi Road, through its Secretary, Patna -800004. 6. Sri Nanhe Prasad, Inquiring Officer, resident of 38, Housing Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna.-1. … Respondents. ----------- 2 12. 29.06.2010 Heard Mr. Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Managing Committee, Ram Mohan Rai Seminary as also learned counsel for the State. In CWJC No. 5882 of 996, the prayer made by the petitioner reads as follows. “(1) That this application is directed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal issued under Memo no. 09/96 dated 4.2.1996 passed by respondent no. 2 under the signature of its Secretary Respondent no. 4 dismissing the petitioner from service and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate and pay full salary from the date of suspension i.e. 19.4.1995 till re- instatement or issue such other writ or writs, direction or directions or pass such other order or orders which may be found just and proper. “ Subsequently by I. A. No. 4660 of 1997 the petitioner had sought leave of this Court to assail the order dated 13.5.1997 as contained in Annexure-25 affirming the order of punishment as passed by the Secretary of Managing Committee of Ram Mohun Roy Seminary. In CWJC No. 4412 of 1998, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: 3 (i) A writ in the nature of writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent no. 2 to take a decision with respect to the punishment imposed on the petitioner dismissing his from service, by respondent nos. 4 and 5. (ii) A writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order contained in Memo No. 01/97 dated 6th January, 1997 issued under the signature of the Secretary of the respondent no. 5, dismissing the petitioner from service. (iii) A writ in the nature of writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the communication dated 1.4.1998 issued under the signature of the Secretary of the respondent no. 5 by which the petitioner was informed that punishment imposed on him by the Managing Committee and upheld by the appellate authority has been approved by the respondent no. 4.” Today when the case has been taken up Mr. Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition the Secretary of Governing body of Sadhan Ashram Sewa Sadan has passed an order reviewing the earlier penalties imposed on the petitioners and therefore the order of punishment against the 4 petitioners as affirmed by the appellate authority do not survive for adjudication. In that view of the matter, when the petitioners have already got their relief as against their order of punishment in terms of aforementioned order of review, this Court is not even called upon to say anything except that these writ petitions by efflux of time have become infructuous and are dismissed accordingly. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)