IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1526 of 2009 1. Amarjeet Kumar Singh S/O Arun Kumar Singh Vill- Olapur Gangaur, P.S. Gangaur, Distt. Khagaria .. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate Khagaria 3. District Education Officer Khagaria 4. Sri Yogender Paswan Member, District Teachers Employment Appelate Tribunal, Khagaria 5. Sri Surendra Singh, Area Education Officer Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 6. Sunil Kumar, Panchayat Secretary Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 7. Sudha Paswan, Mukhia Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 8. Principal Primary School, Khairi, Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 9. Mithlesh Paswan, Deputy Mukhia Member Of Panchayat Teacher Society, Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 10. Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Raj Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 11. Gram Panchayat Samiti Bela Simri, Distt. Khagaria 12. Bachandev Chaurasia S/O Kailas Prashad Chaurasia Bela Simri, P.S. Gangaur, Distt. Khagaria … Respondents ----------- For the appellant :- Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Bharat Bhusan, Advocate For respondent No.12 :- Sri Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. Mr. Surindra Singh, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate For state :- Udai Shankar Singh, 7 01.08.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10010/2009. The said writ petition was filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria dated 08.07.2009 by which the Appellate Tribunal set aside the appointment of the 2 appellant as a Panchayat Teacher in complete disregard of the selection process. The respondent no.12, Bachandev Chaurasia approached the Tribunal questioning the appointment of appellant herein on the ground that the appellant having obtained lesser percentage of marks have been appointed as Panchayat Teacher. As the selection of the appellant was set aside by the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge also confirmed the order of the Tribunal against which the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the appointment of the appellant herein for the reason that neither respondent no.12 has appeared for the interview nor he was available at the time of selection process and the complaint was lodged after merely a period of two years. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.12 submits that 3 there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Rules of 2006 for lodging a complaint and hence if the Tribunal has entertained such complaint, there cannot be any objection for lodging such complaint before the Tribunal. Taking note of rival submissions of the parties as also on perusal of the selection list prepared by the appointing authority, it appears that the appellant herein was shown at serial no. 171 having obtained 48.66 marks. With regard to point of limitation, even though Rules do not prescribe any period of limitation, but the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Alok Kumar and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors reported in 2009(2) PLJR 929 lays down the period of limitation of 30 days for lodging a complaint before the District Magistrate as per old Rule. In view of the fact that the new Rules do not prescribe any period of limitation, it has to be observed that the complaint has to be lodged within a reasonable time and the complainant cannot have any opportunity to file such complaint 4 beyond a reasonable time. But however, as the question with regard to lodging of the complaint within a ‘reasonable time’, this Court is of the opinion that the reasonable time has to be interpreted as per facts depending upon the facts of each cases. We are of the opinion that as respondent no.12 has approached the appellate tribunal merely after a period of 2 years, the same cannot be termed as ‘reasonable time’ with regard to the facts of this case. But however, on merits, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 12 that the appellants stood at serial no.171 having lesser mark which remain undisputed, we are of the opinion that there is no explanation forthcoming from the State how a person having shown at Serial no. 171 have been accommodated within the post which are eleven in number when other candidates are available having obtained higher marks. In absence of such explanation forthcoming from the State and also having perused the merit list, we are of the opinion that the appellant ought not have been accommodated 5 as a candidate among eleven having seemed lesser marks. On that ground the case of the appellant fails. However, we make it clear that in future vacancies if advertised by the competent authority, this order will not stand in the way of the appellant to apply afresh as per rules. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Vikash Jain,J.)