IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.251 of 2008 DEEPAK PRASAD GOSWAMI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate Mr. Kuber Pathak, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Government Pleader-XV Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to Government Pleader-XV ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 13th August, 2008. The counsel for the appellant states that as per guidelines dated 11th August, 2004, it was incumbent upon the State authorities to give a prior notice of fortnight before terminating the appellants’ appointment as Shiksha Mitra prematurely. 2. That the appellants were appointed as Shiksha Mitra on contract basis for eleven months on 13th May, 2005 is not in dispute. That the District Magistrate, Buxar passed a general order on 27th August, 2005 canceling the appointment of all those appointees including the appellants is also not is dispute. That a prior notice of fortnight was not given to the appellants before termination of their appointment is also not in dispute. That the tenure of appointment has - 2 - come to an end by efflux of time somewhere in the month of April, 2006 is also not in dispute. The question that falls for determination is: whether at this distance of time after the tenure of the appointment has already expired by efflux of time, are the appellants entitled to any relief from this Court. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not necessary to advert to the diverse averments made in the counter affidavit but suffice it to say that two aspects are clearly borne out from the counter affidavit, namely; (one) that complaints were received in respect of mass irregularities in the appointments of Shiksha Mitra and after conduct of general enquiry by the Sub Divisional officer, Buxar, merit was found in the complaints, and it was decided to cancel all appointments including that of the appellants, and (two) that subsequent to cancellation of the appointments, fresh process for appointment of Shiksha Mitra took- place and in that process the appellants appeared and were unsuccessful. 4. Even if we ignore the second aspect, in our considered view, since mass irregularities were found in the general enquiry held by the Sub Divisional officer, it was not necessary to give individual notice of a fortnight as per the guidelines of 11th August, 2004. Moreover, the tenure of appointment has already expired and, even otherwise, the appellants could not have been - 3 - granted any relief in so far as reinstatement was concerned. 5. Letters patent appeal, accordingly, has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-