IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1218 of 2006 Prasanna kumar jha 'pardeshi', Son of late Asharfi Jha Resident of village Morwa, P.s. Musarigharari, District – Samastipur, At present Head Master Incharge Khuneshwar Rajniti Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Morwa, Distirct Samastipur …. Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, through its Secretary, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna, , East Boring Canal Road, Patna 4. The District Education Officer, Samastipur 5. Sri Ramesh Jha, son of Sri Sada Nand Jha, resident of village Morwa, P.S. Musarigharari, District Samastipur, Assistant Teacher, Khudneshwar Rajniti Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Morwa, District Samastipur 6. The State of Bihar ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s G.K.Jha, Advocate S.K. Jha For Bihar Sanskrit : Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate Siksha Board For the State : Mr. Prabhul Kr. Singh, A.C. G.A. 1 For the Respondent no. 5:Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate ---- 6 10.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, the State and the respondent no. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the letter dated 5.8.2005, a copy of which is 2 appended as Annexure 1, whereby the District Education Officer, Samastipur, has sought clarification from the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) as to whether in the facts and circumstances described therein , who should in fact be made Incharge Headmaster. Further till the clarification / guideline comes the respondent no. 5 was directed to work as Incharge Headmaster. Learned counsel challenges the ad hoc order passed by the District Education Officer, Samastipur on the ground that he was not competent to issue such letter. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 17.3.2005 passed by the Board (Annexure 3) made Incharge Headmaster. However, subsequently that order was modified by the Board and vide office order dated 11.6.2005 (Annexure 4) petitioner was made Incharge Headmaster in place of the respondent no. 5 as a consequence of which the impugned letter was issued by the District Education Officer. However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 also informing that vide Annexure B dated 19.3.2007 thereof a fresh decision has been taken by the Board and the 3 respondent no. 5 now has been made Incharge Headmaster on the basis of seniority in place of the petitioner. That order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing statutory appeal before the Special Director (Sanskrit) Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, bearing Appeal No. 14 of 2007. In the meantime another writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6499 of 2010 was also filed by this petitioner, which was disposed of by order dated 13.1.2011, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 12 in reply of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. This Court has directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within the time framed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that bare reading of the impugned letter, i.e., Annexure 1, it would be evident that the respondent was to work as Incharge Headmaster only till a fresh decision or guideline by the Board. However, since a fresh decision has been taken by the Board that letter (Annexure 1) now become wholly irrelevant as the subsequent order is admittedly under challenge in appeal as aforesaid. Thus, this writ petition has become infrcutuous. This contention also finds support from the 4 submissions made on behalf of the State as well as the Board. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the State as well as respondent no. 5. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the letter contained in Annexure 1, which was ad hoc guideline or decision taken by the concerned authority. Final decision has been taken subsequently during the pendency of the writ application vide Annexure B, which is order dated 19.3.2007 appended in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Since that order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a statutory appeal, the subsequent developments as aforesaid renders this writ application infructuous. As a result this writ application is dismissed as having become infructuous. This is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to cases of the respective parties and the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal without being prejudiced by this order. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)