IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2392 of 2008 ====================================================== MRITUNJAY KUMAR, S/O SRI BALMUKUND PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE-KHARSARI, P.O.-KHARSARI, P.S.-JAMUI, DISTRICT- JAMUI. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI. 5. THE PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, JAMUI. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JAMUI. 7. THE SUB-DIVISION OFFICER, JAMUI. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, JAMUI, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JAMUI, DISTRICT- JAMUI. 10. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT KUNDRI SUNKURHE, BLOCK AND DISTRICT-JAMUI. 11. THE PANCHAYAT SEWAK GRAM PANCHAYAT KUNDRI SANKURHA, BLOCK AND DISTRICT-JAMUI. 12. SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O SATYADEO PRASAD SINGH PRIMARY SCHOOL KHARSARI, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 13. TUNTUN SINGH, S/O ANANDI SINGH, UTKRAMIT MIDDLE SCHOOL HATALE, DISTRICT-JAMUI. 14. RAM PRAVESH SINGH , S/O RAM CHARIT SINGH, PRIMARY SCHOOL, MAHUAGANJ, DISTRICT-JAMUI. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : GA-4 ====================================================== 3 11-07-2011 In this writ application petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent nos.12 to 14 as Siksha Mitra made pursuant to a proceeding of the Committee dated 26.05.2005, as contained in Annexure-3. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had filed any complaint before any authority of the Government within the time, raising his grievance in respect of alleged illegal appointment of the said respondents. The only application of the petitioner to any authority filed in the matter is Annexure-4 dated 02.08.2007. Although it is mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ application that the petitioner had filed several applications before the respondent authorities against the said illegal appointments, but the said statement is vague. Therefore, in absence of any supporting fact or materials on record the same cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, the application on record filed by the petitioner is apparently after the 2006 Rules came into force under which the post of Shiksha Mitra was converted into regular post of Panchayat Shikshak and incumbents holding the post as on 01.07.2006 were allowed to continue on regular basis. The application of the petitioner is therefore apparently an afterthought and cannot be accepted as an objection raised within the time. This Court therefore does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (Jayanandan Singh, J)