IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13 of 2008 VINAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.23 of 2008 JAMAL NASIR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 08.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis for the period 29.1.2003 to 29.12.2004. Thereafter the contract may have been renewed subject to the satisfaction of the authorities of the performance of the candidate. After that date, the right to renewal was an inchoate right and cannot be a foundation for a cause of action. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that in view of the expiry of the contractual period, the subsequent inchoate right and now coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006 with effect from 1.7.2006 providing for eligibility and procedure for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak it is not possible for this Court to grant him any positive relief.. This Court however finds substance in the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance of his representation an order bearing no. 2321 of 2.2.2008 has now been passed by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra confirming the allegation of the petitioners of interpolation in their marks to wrongly deny them appointment and granting the same to other persons who had lesser marks than them. If the petitioners were to apply in response to any advertisement for the post of Panchayat Shikshak, the fact that earlier they had applied and the finding that they were fully eligible but had been wrongly denied appointment in illegal manner confirmed in an enquiry shall appropriately be kept in mind by the authorities concerned. The fact that no positive relief can be granted to the petitioners does not detract the from the responsibility of the respondents to take all necessary consequential action in pursuance of the enquiry report dated 2.2.2008 in context of those who may have acquired the status of permanency as Panchayat Shikshak under Rule 20(3) of Rules 2006. This Court accordingly directs respondent no. 8, the statutory authority now under Rule 18 of Rules 2006 to take all consequential action after hearing all concerned. Despite the fact that the writ petitions were filed on 2.1.2008 after service of two copies of the same to the Counsel for the respondents on 14.12.2007 learned Counsel for the State submits that he has no instruction if any consequential action has been taken by the respondents in terms of the report dated 2.2.2008 more particularly with regard to the direction for lodgment of an FIR. The respondents have therefore sought to defeat the entire process for which the High Court Rules were amended directing two copies of the writ petition to be served on the Counsel for the respondents. This Court is not persuaded on the submission of the Counsel for the respondents to adjourn the matter to enable him to obtain instructions if directions of the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra for institution of the FIR against those concerned has been complied with or not. These are purely administrative matters. At this stage no legal issue for adjudication are involved in the same. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter. Let respondent no. 4 verify if necessary consequential action has been taken in pursuance of his order dated 2.2.2008 and ensure compliance thereof. The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)