Patna High Court CWJC No.16621 of 2007 (2) dt.02-09-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.16621 OF 2007. 1. GANESH KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE LAKSHMAN LAL YADAV, R/O VILL-GOURA, P.S.-MUFFASIL RANI PATRA, DISTRICT-PURNIA. 2. SANAI KUMAR S/O SHOBHA NAND THAKUR, R/O BHOKARAHA, P.S.-K.NAGAR, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 3. SANTOSH KUMAR RAMAN, S/O MAHABIR PASWAN R/O VILL-KULLAKHAS, P.S.-KASBA, DISTRICT PURNEA. 4. MD. SAMIRUDDIN S/O MD. SAIFUDDIN VILL- PANKHAWA P.S.- GOLALGARH, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 5. NIRUPA DEVI W/O ASHOKA KUMAR SINGH, VILLAGE-SIMALGACHI P.S.-MUFFASIL RANIPATRA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 6. ANIL KUMAR RISHI S/O RAMDHANI RISHI VILLAGE-BIYARPUR, P.S.-MUFFASIL RANIPATRA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 7. RATAN MALA KUMARI W/O CHANDRA YADAV, VILL- SARHA, P.S. KASBA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 8. SADANAND YADAV, S/O LATE MAHABIR CHANDRA YADAV, VILLAGE- GURHI, P.S.-KASBA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 9. SURENDRA PASWAN S/O. LATE MOHAN PASWAN VILLAGE-BISHANPUR, P.S.-KASBA, DISTRICT- PURNEA. 10. MANORANJAN KUMAR S/O SHIV NARAYAN RAM VILLAGE- RAHUA, P.S.-K. NAGAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. 11. ASHOKA KUMAR MAHTO S/O SHIV NARAYAN MATHO VILLAGE-BANIYAPATTI KAJHA, P.S. K. NAGAR, DISTRICT-PURNEA. .... .... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR HIMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNIA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PURNIA. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PURNIA. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER BLOCK PURNIA EAST, DISTRICT-PURNIA. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER BLOCK, KRIYTANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT-PURNIA. 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER BLOCK, KASBA DISTRICT-PURNIA. 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENJTION OFICER BLOCK, JALALGARH, DISTRICT-PURNIA. .... .... RESPONDENTS Patna High Court CWJC No.16621 of 2007 (2) dt.02-09-2011 2 02-09-2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ application the petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Teachers Appellate Authority which has been rejected. That being so, this application has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the petitioner now will have the liberty to assail the aforementioned order of the Authority in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and liberty, this application is disposed of. RANJAN (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)