IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11086 of 2006 ARCHANA KUMARI w/o Sanjay Kumar Tripathy, D/o Suresh Tiwari, resident of village and P.O. Barhara, Police Station Barhara, District Bhojpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Bhojpur. 3. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Barhara, P.O. P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur. 4. Prakhand Siksha Prasar Padadhikari (B.E.E.O.) Block West Barhara, P.O. & P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur. 5. Block Development Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur. 6. District Education Superintendent District Bhojpur. 7. Manju Devi w/o Vinay Shankar Tiwari, Resident of Nehru Nagar, Ara, police Station Ara Town, District Bhojpur. ----------- 2 24.8.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State and taking into account the limited prayer that has been made in this writ application reading as follows, “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the appointment of Respondent no.7 in the matter arising out of the appointment of Siksha Mitra at Village Rampur Block West Barhara, District Bhojpur under Sarv Siksha Abhiyan of Bihar Education Project by depriving the deserving and meritorious candidate.” this Court would hold that sofar petitioner’s prayer for seeking his own appointment on the post of Siksha Mitra is concerned, that cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the post of Siksha Mitra came to be abolished w.e.f. 1.7.2006. The next part of the relief claimed by the petitioner as with regard to quashing the appointment of Respondent no.7 could be gone into had there been any patent illegality established by the petitioner. It has to be noted that respondent no.7 has already been now made Panchayat Shikshak in view of 2006 Rules and 2 when the authorities had initially sought to make a review of appointment of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.7 by order dated 15.7.2005, the said exercise was again gone into by the Sukh Subidha Samiti dated 31.10.2005 who again did not find any merit in the grievance of the petitioner. Counsel, however, would submit that the said order does not contain any reason nor it deals with the specific allegation of the petitioner for the illegality in the appointment of respondent no.7. In the opinion of this Court, when such illegality, in fact has not at all been explained by the petitioner in the writ application it would be very difficult for this Court to appreciate this aspect of the matter and in that context review made by the Panchayat and its Samiti finding no merit in the grievance of the petitioner should be good enough to close the chapter of appointment of respondent no.7 on the post of Siksha Mitra specially when the said post is no longer in existence after 1.7.2006. That being so, this writ application must be held to have become infructious and is dismissed accordingly. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)