IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15118 of 2010 1. LAL BAHADUR YADAV S/O LATE LAXMI PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- SATTOUR TOLA BARWAHI, P.O.- NARAYANPUR, P.S.- NAUHATTA, DISTT.- SAHARSA 2. GAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE RAGHUWAR PD. YADAV R/O VILL.- SATTOUR, P.O.- NARAYANPUR, P.S.- NAUHATTA, DISTT.- SAHARSA--------------------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 3. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA--------- ------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 28.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Too much of indulgence shown by the High Court does not help issues but only helps generation of further litigation. This is one of those cases which has come to my notice in the background the present writ application has been filed, assailing annexure-19 to the writ application. This is the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar on the earlier direction of the Court. The issue raised by the petitioners in the present writ application related to the legality of their appointment and their continuance on the post of assistant teacher in what is known as Middle School Sattour Narayanpur Anchal Nauhatta in the District of Saharsa. According to these petitioners they have joined the school on 25.7.1979 but after take-over they never acquired any legal right or recognition by the respondent State. This led to - 2 - filing of the writ application which was CWJC No. 4941 of 1983. This writ application came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the direction of the Court and the issue remained in that situation for more than one decade. The petitioners at a later stage came alive to the situation when they decided to file MJC No. 331 of 1994 for restoration of main writ application. This application for restoration was also dismissed on 28.9.2000 but the litigation did not come to end because the petitioners after many a years filed yet another writ application for similar kind of relief which was CWJC No. 6242 of 2008. The Court instead of adjudicating the matter in the light of past litigation permitted the petitioners to withdraw that writ application to move the concerned authority on this issue and the order in this background contained in annexure- 19 has come to be passed. The issue or the dispute raised by the petitioners will have to be seen in the light of the origin of dispute and not on the basis of the order which has now passed by the Director at the behest of the High Court order. Obviously the writ application filed in the year 2008 ought not to have been entertained by the High Court or given indulgence to the petitioners to move the authority which has revived the issue. In view of the earlier part of the discussion, in this order, for all practical purposes the issue raised by the petitioners comes to rest after dismissal of CWJC No. 4941 of 1983 and the rejection of restoration application. Be that as it may, - 3 - the respondent authority including the Director cannot be faulted not to entertain such a claim on the issue which relates to appointment for the year 1979 and the judicial order which came to be passed by the High Court on the writ side. This writ application has no merit and as such no interference is warranted with the order impugned. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)