IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14016 of 2007 Nitu Kumari, wife of Dhananjay Kumar Rai, resident of village Bhirha, P.O. Bhirha, P.S. Rosera, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Samastipur 4. Director Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Block Development Officer, Rosera, Samastipur 6. Block Education Extension Officer, Rosera, Samastipur 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhirha West, District Samastipur 8. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhirha (West), Block Rosera, District Samastipur … Respondents ----------- 3. 19.7.2011 After some argument Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to enable the petitioner to move the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Samastipur. This application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn but it is made clear that if the petitioner would file a complaint before the Authority within a period of one month from today, the said Authority shall decide the grievance of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law 2 and on merits without going into the question of limitation in view of the fact that this writ application has remained pending since 2.11.2007. It is also made clear that the Authority while adjudicating the complaint filed by the petitioner shall make its own enquiry and shall not be guided by any order passed by the Respondents either in favour or against the petitioner and it will also take its own independent decision in the light of the relevant Government Resolution in vogue on the date of engagement of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra after addressing itself to the most crucial question involved in this case, namely, whether the post on which the petitioner was appointed was ear-marked for the reserved category and whether against such a reserved post the appointment of the petitioner belonging to general category was possible. With the aforesaid observation this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/