IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5339 of 2009 MOSAPHIR SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/s Arun Kumar, Md Hussainuddin Azad And Hans Lal Kumar, Advocates For the State : JC to AAG 7 ----- 2. 27.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been appointed by the erstwhile Managing Committee of the private school taken over as a project school during 1984-85 phase. It is submitted that in pursuance of the matter being referred to the three men committee by the Supreme Court the petitioner has wrongly been denied absorption while respondents 8 and 9 have been given the benefits. Referring to Annexure 4 dated 22.7.2008, learned counsel disputes the recitals therein that he could not be absorbed as he was appointed against a non sanctioned post. It is his case that the petitioner and respondents 8 & 9 were appointed on the same day in like manner. Learned Counsel next submits that the order dated 22.7.2008 declining him absorption was not a final order as per the recitals contained therein. The Director (Secondary Education) in the order has himself stated that any person aggrieved may file a representation before him. In pursuance of the same the petitioner has filed a representation on 25.8.2008. The matter remains pending and has not been decided or disposed till today. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the writ application is disposed with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Any development in the meantime between the petitioner vis a vis respondent nos. 8 & 9 for its continuance shall ultimately depend on the final order that may be passed by the respondents. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)