IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8983 of 2006 DHRUB KUMAR son of Bangali Choudhary, residentof mohalla Mallah Toli, Belbanwa, P.S. Motihari (Town), District East Champaran .. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, 3. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, 4. The Head Mistress, Prabhawati Gupta Girls High School, Motihari, … ..Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, AC to GA ----------- 3 01.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier he had filed C.W.J.C. No. 12295 of 1996 for a direction to the respondents to approve the service of the petitioner as a peon in the Prabhawati Gupta Girls High School, Motihari with effect from 13th December, 1995 i.e. the date when the school was made a Project School under the respondent-State. However, since it was disputed on behalf of the State that the petitioner was appointed as a Night Guard, as no post of Night Guard was sanctioned for the school and another person was working in the school as peon, whose service was recognized, the writ petition was 2 dismissed. A copy of the order dated 19.05.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12295 of 1996 appended as Annexure 3 shows that the aforesaid order would not stand in the way of the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority/court of law for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has, thus, moved before the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, by filing a representation, a copy of which is contained as Annexure 4 to this application and the correspondence seems to have started after the filing of such representation as per Annexures 6 and 7. However, it is submitted that no decision has been taken on his representation. Learned counsel for the State files counter affidavit taking stand of the State, which was also its stand in the earlier writ application. However, learned counsel admits that no decision seems to have been taken on the representation of the petitioner. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2, the Director, Secondary Education, State of Bihar, that if the representation dated 13.12.2000 has been filed by the petitioner before him, the same should be disposed of within 3 three months by speaking order and a copy of such decision should be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)