IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10996 of 2011 1. Satyanarayan Yadav son of Late Tanuklal Yadav, resident of village Bathnaha, P.S.-Phulparas, Dist.-Madhubani 2. Parshuram Paswan, son of Sri Ram Narayan Paswan, resident of Belmohan, P.S.-Phulparas, Dist.-Madhubani. 3. Ram Narayan Ram son of Late Tetar Ram, resident of village Bathnaha, P.S.-Phulparas, Dist.-Madhubani 4. Nityanand Jha, son of Late Jeevnath Jha, resident of village Belmohan, P.S.-Phulparas, Dist.-Madhubani. 5. Jeevachh Ram son of Sri Chitlal Ram, resident of village Mansapur, P.S.-Laukahi, Dist.-Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 5. The Block Development Officer, Phulparas, Madhubani. 6. The Block Development Officer, Laukahi, District- Madhubani. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Tardih, Darbhanga. 8. The Block Education Extention Officer, Phulparas. 9. The Pramukh, Tardih Panchayat Samiti, Dist.-Darbhanga. 10. The Pramukh, Phulparas Panchayat Samiti, Dist.- Madhubani. 11. The Block Teachers Selection Committee, Phulparas, Madhubani. ----------- 2. 13.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ is that though they have been selected for the post of block teacher in their respective blocks under the second phase 2008 Prakhand/Block Teachers Employment Programme after fulfilling all the requirements and the procedure laid down for the same, still they have not been issued their joining letter resulting in them not being able to take up their responsibility. 2 He submits that the same is totally arbitrary since there is no impediment in law and even as late as on 12.8.2010 a letter was written by which it is shown that they have been selected. Learned counsel for the respondent State prays for time to file counter affidavit. In view of the order which this Court purposes to pass there does not seem to be any justification in granting time to the learned counsel for the State to file a counter affidavit since it would only result in delay in disposing off the matter. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the issue involved, this Court directs respondents no. 7 and 8, that is, the Block Education Extension Officer, Tardih, Darbhanga and Block Education Extension Officer, Phulparas to immediately issue the appointment letter to the petitioners which they are legally entitled to. It goes without saying that this direction is subject to there being no other legal bar to issuance of the same. Let it be done within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon the said respondents no. 7 and 8. Accordingly, this writ petitions stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand Kr. ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)