IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1402 of 2008 Soni Kumari Keshri, W/o Suresh Kumar Keshri, Resident of Village Lalganj, P.O. Sondhila, P.S. Buxar (Mofussil), District Buxar…………………………………………..………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director, Panchayatee Raj, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar 4. The Block Development Officer, Buxar 5. The Mukhia, Nadaw, Gram Panchayat, P.O. Sondhila, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar…………………………………………………………………………Respondents ----------- 2 14.09.2010 I. A. No.8086 of 2010 Along with this interlocutory application, an order of the Appellate Authority has been brought on record as Annexure-7 by which it is said that the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected during the pendency of this writ application. In the I.A., petitioner has prayed for amendment of the writ application with a liberty to challenge the said order. There is no opposition to the said interlocutory application. The interlocutory application is allowed. Let it be treated as part of the writ application. Petitioner is permitted to challenge the said order of the Appellate Authority. 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. As per the case of the petitioner, she had applied for engagement as Shiksha Mitra on 05.05.2005. Selection process was completed and other persons were appointed. When petitioner did not come to know about the reasons for non- inclusion of her name, it was only in 2007 that she started making enquiry and then she came to know that, in spite of the fact that petitioner was having higher marks than other persons, they were appointed in 2005. She filed this writ application in this Court. During the pendency of the writ application, she also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has rejected her appeal by said Annexure-7 dated 16.04.2010. From the order of the appellate Authority, it appears that the concerned officials of the Panchayat had found discrepancy in the application of the petitioner vis-à-vis certificates produced by her and, therefore, her application was rejected. That appears to be a valid ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner. 3 Be that as it may, it is apparent that only after Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 came into force with effect from 01.07.2006 converting the post of Shiksha Mitra into a regular post of Panchayat Teacher, petitioner got interested in the matter, and started pursuing a claim. Thus, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner is barred by principle of delay and laches. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)