- (1.) WE have heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 6.
(2.) THIS intra Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge dismiss­ing his writ petition No. 43748 of 2008 with the direction to the petitioner to move a representation with regard to his grievance before the District Magistrate, who has been directed to decide the same within a time bound period. It further pro­vides that if the appellant is not satisfied by the decision of the District Magistrate on the representation he may file a civil suit. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged two points. First, the order dated 25.7.2008 impugned in the writ petition was passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari on the direction of the District Magistrate to terminate the ser­vices of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra and, therefore, there was no justification to relegate the appellant to file a representation before the District Magistrate. Secondly, it has been argued that the appellant's right to seek redressal by invok­ing Article 226 of the Constitution in future has also been taken away, which is not permissible under law.
(3.) WE have perused the order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 25.7.2008. The order clearly recites that the services of the appellant were termi­nated on a complaint made to the District Magistrate, on the direction of the District Magistrate. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was no purpose in sending the appellant to the District Magistrate for ventilating his grievance. The District Magistrate has already taken a decision in the matter and, as such, the exercise of making a representation before him on the face of it is futile.;