JUDGEMENT Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. In C.W.J.C. No. 11753 of 1997 no one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, is present on behalf of private respondent, whose regularization has been challenged in this writ application. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 5827 of 1998, Mr. Indu Sekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, is present. None is present on behalf of private respondent. 3. State is represented in both the cases. 4. Learned Counsels agree that the issue has now become academic as all parties must have got their reliefs. 5. The issue basically was with regard to regularization/non regularization of teachers in Project schools. The controversy arose because at the relevant time there were confusing Circulars of the Government. Some, which were referring to regularization of only five teachers, which included one Head Master/Head Mistress. Thus, the actually four only. There were other Circulars in which this number was increased in nine. Learned Counsels agree that ultimately the State Government itself realized the problem and clarified the situation making the number of teachers to be regularized at nine. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is by virtue of that no dispute is left in respect of the two writ petitioners because both the petitioners of the two writ petitions fall within nine teachers. So far as second writ petition is concerned, Mr. Indu Sekhar Prasad Sinha clearly states that his client has already got relief as sought for. 6. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent in first writ petition has drawn my attention to the impugned notification, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition with regard to regularization of private respondent No. 5, which is challenged by the writ petitioner, who claims that instead of respondent No. 5 in the fourth place of teacher, petitioner ought to have been regularized. This notification itself referred to the pending matter before Full Bench of this Corut. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh draws my attention to the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287 . This notification itself referred to the pending matter before Full Bench of this Corut. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh draws my attention to the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287 . The question as to number of teachers has been discussed by the Full Bench in paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment and they took the view that the number of teachers, who are to be regularized/absorbed, are nine. This decision of the Full Bench was challenged by the State before the Apex Court but the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of Full Bench in the case of State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh since reported in 2006 (1) PLJR 483 (SC) wherein the discussion about number of teachers is to be found in paras 20, 58 and 60 wherein the Apex Court while affirming the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court has held that the number of teacher to be regularized/absorbed would be nine. 8. Learned Counsel thus submits that nothing remains because the petitioners must have got their reliefs without disturbing the private respondent. 9. As no one appears on behalf of the petitioner, nothing remains to decide any further in view of the fact, as noted above, both the writ applications stand disposed of.