IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9616 of 2010 1. AKHILESH KUMAR, S/O SRI SIYARAM PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE HARLA, P.O. MANKIPAR, P.S. KADIRGANJ,DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DHANARUA,PATNA. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,DHANARUA,PATNA 8. THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY,PATNA. 9. THE MUKHIYA,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NIMRA PALI, DHANARUA,PATNA. 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NIMRA PALI, DHANARUA,PATNA. 11. ABINDAR PRASAD, S/O KRISHNANDAN PRASAD, VILLAGE NIMRA PALI, P.O. PANDIT GANJ,PATNA. ----------- 2 30.07.2010 The petitioner, by this writ application, challenges the order dated 22.04.2010, as passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Patna which order has been communicated to him under Memo No 199 dated 22.04.2010 and is contained in Annexure-11. The short point that was raised by the petitioner for impugning the order that, as apparent from the order itself, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the year, 2005-2006. The appellant, before the Tribunal, did not complain or raise any grievance. For the first time, he raised grievance in the year, 2008 as noticed in the order itself. The appellate Tribunal itself has noticed that this was an unexplained delay. The appellate Tribunal has further noticed orders of this Court in which this Court has held that such delayed action should not be entertained still the appellate Tribunal has chosen to entertain the complaint and set aside the selection after almost five years. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Others 2 –Versus- State of Bihar & Others, 2009 (2) PLJR 929. Having heard the learned counsel for the State, in my view, the order cannot be sustained. The facts, as noted in the impugned order itself, show that petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra in the year, 2005-2006. As per provisions made by the State Government, an objection as to the correctness or otherwise of the merit list, as prepared, has to be made within one month. No objection was raised. Subsequently petitioner, being working as Shiksha Mitra, was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher and long thereafter, challenge was made before the Block Development Officer (BDO). It may be noted that in terms of Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Service Condition and Appointment) Rules 2006, at the relevant time in terms of Rule 18 thereof, BDO was the designated authority to entertain the complaints but that Rule itself provided that complaint, if any, had to be made within 30 days of selection/recruitment. The complaint, as per the appellate order itself to the BDO, was made for the first time in the year, 2008. Thus, the complaint was totally barred and could not be entertained. This Court finds it surprising as to why after noticing judgment of this Court that belated challenge cannot be entertained, Tribunal still went ahead to entertain the matter and directed for cancellation of the selection process of Shiksha Mitra which post itself ceased to exist five years back. On these grounds, the order of the Tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed and the writ application is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)