IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1343 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7839/2009) 1. Kiran Kumari, D/O Surendra Singh, R/O Vill.- Karasghat, P.O.- Jhanjhua Bazar, P.S.- Mohammadpur, Distt.- Gopalganj ---- Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Gopalganj 3. The Member, District Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj 5. The B.D.O., Sidhoulia Block, Gopalganj 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sidhaulia, Gopalganj 7. The Regional Education Officer, Barouli, Gopalganj 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Karasghat, Block Sidhualia, Distt.- Gopalganj 9. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Karasghat, Sidhaualia Block, Distt.- Gopalganj 10. The Headmaster, Government Middle School Jhanjhua Bazar, Sidhaulia Block, Distt.- Gopalganj 11. Meena Kumari ,W/O Sri Rameshwar Singh, D/O Arjun Singh Vill.- Karasghat Sidhaulia Block, P.O.- Mohammadpur, Distt.- Gopalganj --- Respondents/Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 17.8.2011 None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.I. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W. J.C. No. 7839 of 2009 (Kiran Kumari Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 2 13.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. It relates to appointment as Panchayat Teachers. We have perused materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that the petitioner (the appellant herein) was originally selected as a Shiksha Mitra in 2005, on contractual post, for a period of 11 months on fixed remuneration. It appears that the petitioner did not join the post, presumably because it was a contractual appointment for a fixed period, and she was desirous of joining a permanent post. She thereafter moved the learned appellate Tribunal in December 2009, which has been rejected leading to the writ petition. We are of the view that the writ petitioner had moved the learned appellate Tribunal belatedly, allowing parallel rights to be created by lapse of time, negligence, and acquiescence entirely attributable to her. Furthermore, posts of Shiksha Mitra has since been abolished, and those of Panchayat Teachers have been created in the Panchayats which are no longer contractual in nature. It is evident that she moved Tribunal after creation of posts of Panchayat Teachers which is a fundamentally different post. 3 There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)