IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.29 of 2010 SAJJAN KUMAR S/O RAM SOBHA SINGH R/O VILL.- POST- P.S.- ALOULI, DISTT.- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPTT, NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KHAGARIA, AT-POST-DISTT.- KHAGARIA 3. COLLECTOR, KHAGARIA, AT+POST+DISTT.- KHAGARIA 4. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALOULI, AT+POST+DISTT.- KHAGARIA 6. SURENDRA PRASAD SHARMA S/O NOT KNOWN THE SECRETARY, AMBAICHARWA PRAKHAND ALOULI, DISTT.- KHAGARIA 7. SHRI YOGENDRA PASWAN S/O NOT KNOWN MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT OF APPELLATE PRADHIKAR, KHAGARIA 8. PRAMOD PRABHAKAR ALIAS MANOJ PRABHAKAR S/O RAM CHARITRA SINGH R/O VILL. - ICHARWA, P.O. AMBA, DISTT. - KHAGARIA 9. RAJEEB RANJAN MUKHIYA S/O RAM BAHADUR SINGH AT-AMBA-ICHARWA, P.O.- AMBA, DISTT.- KHAGARIA 10. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O GOPAL PRASAD SINGH MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT TEACHER SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PANCHAYAT TEACHER OF AMBA-ICHARWA, P.O. AMBA, DISTT.- KHAGARIA 11. LILA DEVI W/O RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS GANGA RAM MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT TEACHER SELECTION COMMITTEE OF AMBA-ICHARWA, DISTT. - KHAGARIA 12. RAM NANDAN PRASAD RAI S/O FULCHAND SINGH @ FULO SINGH MEMBER OF PANCHAYAT TEACHER SELECTION OF AMBA-ICHARWA, DISTT. - KHAGARIA ----------- 2/ 03.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner was also one of the applicants for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Amba-Icharwa Prakhand- Alauli, District-Khagaria. The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons having lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed and his claim was not considered by the respondents. It has also been stated that, in fact, no proper information was given to the petitioner for participating in the counseling and taking advantage of this situation, the persons having lesser marks - 2 - than the petitioner was appointed. The process of selection came to an end in the year 2006. For the first time, petitioner raised her objection in the year 2009 by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Annexure-6 series brought on record in order to explain the delay, do not show that these were filed before different authorities, within the period of limitation as no receiving from the office of these authorities are there on these documents. The Tribunal, while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, has considered all these aspects and on perusal of the connected records, came to this conclusion that proper information had been given to the petitioner in same way as to other candidates, but petitioner did not choose to appear in the counselling. The delay part has also been considered by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. This application is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)