IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9144 of 2010 1. BINDU MATI W/O SRI PREM PRAKASH R/O VILL.- HASANPURA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION H.R.D. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARIBIGHA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARIBIGHA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA 10. KUMARI SWETA W/O SRI GAURAV R/O VILL.- BARI BIGHA, P.O. + P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN UTKRAMIT MIDDLE SCHOOL AT BARIBIGHA, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA 11. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY, PATNA ----------- 2 10/02/2011 Annexure-1 is under challenge in the present writ application since the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner taking note of the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7617 of - 2 - 2009 and the writ application was dismissed on 08.07.2009 on the ground that 2005 appointment cannot be challenged in the year 2009 as much water has flown since then. After dismissal of the writ application, petitioner chose to approach the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the claim of the petitioner taking into consideration the decision of the High Court contained in annexure-6 as well as may be even on the merits of the matter. Any effort made on behalf of the petitioner to nit pick on the decision contained in annexure-1 is a misplaced exercise because there was no occasion for the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority after dismissal of the writ application as far back as on 8.7.2009; more so when this decision was not challenged in appeal or before any superior forum. It is a fishing kind of litigation which is being carried out by the petitioner and I think the issue should be brought to rest. Dismissal of the writ application is only remedy for such a misplaced kind of adventurism on - 3 - the part of the petitioner. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)