IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19662 of 2011 1. Suman Kumar S/O Late Ramakant Prasad R/O Village- Saraiya Near Block Colony, P.S. + District- Gopalganj Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 3. The District Programme Co-Ordinator Officer, Literacy, Gopalganj 4. The Chair Person, Zila Parisad, Gopalganj 5. The District Level Selection Committee Of Leteracy India Scheme, Gopalganj Through The Chairman Chandra Devi, Chairperson, Zila Parishad, Gopalganj 6. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj 7. Ranjana Kumari W/O Pankaj Kumar Rana R/O Village- Sareya, Jadopur Road, Behind Lakhpathia More, P.S. & District- Gopalganj (Bihar) ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv. For the State:- A.C. to S.C.-11 For the Zila Parishad:- Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Adv. ---------------- 2. 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy relates to contract appointment on the post of Programme Coordinator under the Literacy Mission at Gopalganj. The duration of the appointment was from 8.9.2011 to March, 2012. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate himself on 8.9.2011 had written to the District Education Officer that allegation of irregularities in the appointments were being made calling for a report. On 17.9.2011 the petitioner has also represented 2 to the District Education Officer with a copy to the District Magistrate but nothing has transpired. The petitioner was also an applicant for the post but which has been provided to respondent no. 7 who did not fulfill the condition of eligibility as she did not possess any Literacy experience but was only a relative of the Chairperson of the Zila Parishad, Gopalganj. Counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the very short term of the appointment after which the writ application may become infructuous the District Magistrate may be directed to decide matters after hearing all concerned including respondent no. 7 within a specified time. Counsel for the State and the Zila Parishad have no objection to the same. It appears, as represented by the petitioner, the District Magistrate is already seized of the matter. Let him pass appropriate final orders after hearing all concerned including respondent no. 7 within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. At this stage, there are mere allegations 3 against Respondent No. 7. Nothing in the present order can be construed as any opinion and/or observation on the legality/illegality of the appointment of Respondent No. 7, which remains open for a final decision by the District Magistrate, to be made after hearing all concerned including Respondent No. 7. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)