IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13881 OF 2007 KUMARI PRIYANKA, D/O SHRI GANESH KUMAR PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE MUBARAKPUR, P.S MARHAURAH, DISTRICT SARAN. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 3.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MARHAURAH, DISTRICT SARAN. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MARHAURAH, DISTRICT SARAN. 6.MUKHIYA MUBARAKPUR PANCHAYAT, MARHAURA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 7.SECRETARY, MUBARAKPUR PANCHAYAT, MARHAURA,DISTRICT SIWAN. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 22.11.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application relates to an order of termination of her service on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. From the pleadings on record in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 12.07.2005 for a period of 11 months, but her services were terminated in the month of March-2006 on the ground that her appointment was made in violation of the terms and conditions in the Government 2 resolution laying down the policy of appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra and that she did not complete 18 years of her age as on 01.01.2005. The very fact that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ application on 31.10.2007, much after the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished on 01.07.2006 whereas the service of the petitioner in fact was terminated in March-2006, would make this writ application now not only futile but also infructuous. The petitioner on account of abolition of post of Shikshamitra now cannot be reinstated in service even if it is held that the order of her termination was bad. There is another reason for this Court to not interfere with the impugned order, inasmuch as, the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy provided in the Government resolution, wherein, she had to file her representation before the Block Development Officer as against any order passed by the Appointing Authority in relation to any 3 terms and conditions of service including the termination process. Considering all these aspects, this Court would find no merit in the application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)