IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11998 of 2010 DAYA SHANKAR PATESHWARI, S/O Late Bishundeo tanti, @ Bishun Tanti, R/O Jogiya, P.S.- Chandi, Distt- Nalanda. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. District Education Officer, Nalanda. 4. Block Education Officer, Chandi, Distt- Nalanda. 5. Panchayat Secretary, Gangaura Panchayat, Chandi, Nalanda. 6. Mukhiya, Gangaura Panchayat, Chandi, Nalanda. 7. Dayanand Singh, Member Panchayat Samiti, Southern Part, Gangaura Panchayat, Block- Chandi, Nalanda. ……..Respondents. ----------- 2 25.03.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved because of his non- selection as an untrained teacher in Gangaura Panchayat under Chandi Block, District of Nalanda. Allegation made in the writ application is that there was large scale interpolation in the registers. Initially petitioner’s name figured in the merit list but he was ousted from the general consideration by such a manipulation. In this regard he relies on the so-called report given by the Block Development Officer, which is annexure 9 to the writ application. Such submissions have no occasion to be gone into, in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier moved the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority raising the grievance of the kind and the appellate authority vide - 2 - its order dated 27.08.2009 rejected his application on the ground that it was time barred. Thereafter petitioner moved the appellate authority second time. Second application was rejected on 01.06.2010 on the ground that since the earlier application of the petitioner was dismissed, a second complaint could not be entertained. This order is Annexure-14 to the writ application. Since neither Annexure 11 nor Annexure 14 are under challenge and so long as these two orders stand there is no occasions for this High Court to make afresh enquiry whether the petitioner had a right for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher in the village or Panchayat concerned. Since the petitioner has failed to challenge the earlier order of rejection as well as the second order of rejection in the present writ application, therefore, this court cannot go into the nitty-gritty of the submissions and decide the matter afresh as a new cause of action. Though a counter affidavit on behalf of the Mukhiya of the Panchayat (respondent no. 6) has been filed denying all the allegations made against him but the Court is not impressed by such a stand or does not disbelieve such a stand. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court cannot entertain this writ application. - 3 - This writ application is dismissed. Bhrdwaj/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)