IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7156 of 2009 KESHARI NANDAN MISHRA, SON OF SHINGHESHWAR MISHRA(ADVOCATE) CIVIL COURT, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN, R/V PIPARPATI, P.S. JOGAPATTI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN-------PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, LEGAL CELL, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN-------RESPONDENTS IST SET. 6. UMESH THAKUR, SON OF BABU SAHEB THAKUR, R/V BELAWA, P.O.+ P.S. LAURIYA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ------RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 02. 30.06.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Memo No. 425 dated 5.5.2009, Annexure-1 whereunder the Officer Incharge, Legal Cell, West Champaran at Bettiah has asked him to accept either the engagement as an Additional Public Prosecutor or to continue as Nyay Mitra, which has been allowed to him by the Gram Kutchery, Donwar in the District of Bettiah. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that both the engagements being contractual in nature, there is no legal bar prohibiting the petitioner to continue as Additional Public Prosecutor in the civil court at Bettiah as also the Nyay Mitra, Gram Kutchery, Donwar. 4. Aforesaid submission of the petitioner has - 2 - been noticed only to be rejected as both the engagements have been allowed to the petitioner by the State and it is the discretion of the State to ask the petitioner to continue either as Additional Public Prosecutor, civil court, Bettiah or as Nyay Mitra, Gram Kutchery, Donwar. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the instructions contained in Memo No. 425 dated 5.5.2009, Annexure-1, and this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)