CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8785 OF 1993 ----------- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India ------------ 1. GAUTAM KAPOOR son of Shiv Nandan Prasad Sinha resident of Mohalla Linepar , Mirzapur, P.S. Nawadah, district Nawadah 2. Ganesh Prasad Singh, son of Shri Shanker Prasad Singh, resident of village Aganda, P.S. Belaganj, district Gaya 3. Raj Kumar Prajapati son of Dhondu Prajapati, resident of village and P.S. Kuyapi district Gaya -------Petitioners Versus . 1. The State of Bihar through the Special Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education-cum-Additional Secretary, Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya/ Patna 4. Abhay Kumar son of not known, Assistant Teacher, Government Basic School, Sherghati, PS Sherghati district Gaya 5. Ravishanker Verma S/o Pauhraj Pd. Asst. Teacher in Govt. Basis School Gogasa district Nawadah -------------Respondents ------------------ For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD ----------------- Shiva Kirti Singh & C. M. Prasad, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners, who are three in number, have preferred this writ petition in the month of September, 1993 raising a grievance that they occupy sufficiently high position in the panel of teachers selected for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Basic School in Magadh Division, prepared pursuant to an advertisement dated 7-8-1988 but ignoring their position in 2 the panel, some persons lower in the panel such as respondents no. 4 and 5 have been appointed whereas petitioners claim was ignored arbitrarily. Categorical stand of the respondents in paragraph 8 of their counter affidavit is to the effect that the panel prepared by the concerned officials was not approved by the department and that being the reason the panel was treated as invalid and the appointments made from that panel have already been cancelled. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that they had filed reply to the said counter affidavit on 12-5-94 giving a suitable reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit. Since the said reply is not on record and it is an old matter, it is difficult to trace the said reply, we have taken on record a copy of the said reply furnished by learned counsel for the petitioners. That copy shows that in paragraph 4 some statements have been made on behalf of the petitioners controverting the stand of the respondents that the panel was invalid for various reasons. However, there is no denial as to the assertion in the counter affidavit that the panel has been treated as invalid and appointments made from that panel have been cancelled. In view of aforesaid facts, in our considered opinion the basis of the grievance raised by the petitioners is no longer existent. The panel having been invalid and appointments having been cancelled, there is no further legal right in the petitioners to claim any relief from this court on the basis of facts pleaded in the 3 writ petition including the relief claimed. In that view of the matter, placing reliance on the counter affidavit that the panel has been treated as invalid and appointments made from the panel have been cancelled, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court The 5th March, 2010 BKS/-NAFR (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.)