IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6711 of 2008 PRATIMA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI GAGAN KUMAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST- HARILOCHANPUR, P.S. SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT SHIKSHAK IN GOVERNMENT PRATHMIK VIDYALAYA HARILOCHANPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK-SARAIRANJANA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SARAIRANJAN BLOCK, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SARAIRANJAN BLOCK, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE NEOJAN SAMITTEE, THROUGH THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHAGWATPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK-SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHAGWATPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK-SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAMPANCHAYAT RAJ BHAGWATPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK-SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 10. THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT PRATHMIK VIDYALAYA HARILOCHANPUR, P.S. AND BLOCK- SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 11. MINA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI MAHESH JHA AND DAUGHTER OF SRI BISHWANATH CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST- HARILOCHANPUR, P.S. SARAIRANJAN, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate and C.M. Chaurasia, Advocate. 2 For the Respondent : M/s. Sarvdeo Singh and Rajiv Kr. No.11. Jha No.1, Advocates. --------- 11. 22.2.2011. In view of the averments made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application. Permission is accorded. This writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the respective parties. Since the earlier appeal has not been decided by the Appellate Tribunal on its own merit, the Respondent No.11, if he is so advised, would be at liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. If such appeal is filed, this order will not come in the way of the Appellate Tribunal in deciding the same on its own merit in accordance with law. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)