IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1273 of 2011 Subhash Kumar Singh, son of late Raghuni Prasad Singh, resident of village Pipara, P.O.Karharia, P.S.Bath, District Bhagalpur--- petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur, through its members 4.The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Convenor, Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur 6.Mukhiya of the Grampanchayat Karharia, Block Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur 7.The Secretary of the Grampanchayat Karharia, Block Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur 8.Sri Pankaj Kumar, son of not known working as Primary School Sarifa, Panchayat Karharia, Block Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur----- -----respondents ----------- 2. 02.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner claims to have applied and selected on the post of Shiksha Mitra by Memo No.51 dated 26.2.2004 and posted at Primary School, Sarifa for 11 months. The petitioner claims to have joined the said school and worked till 24.7.2004. After that he alleges that he was debarred 2 from working on the said post and subsequently the respondent No.8 Pankaj Kumar has been appointed in place of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have filed several representations before various authorities from 2004 to 2009 and ultimately filed an application before the Janta Darbar of Chief Minister which was forwarded to the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority and numbered as Appeal Case No.301 of 2009 in which the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not issued any notice of termination and was simply debarred from working after 24.7.2004 and thus the action of the authorities is in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have perused the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur and the other materials on the record. In the said order it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had failed to produce the original certificates before the Sukh- Suvidha Committee and accordingly in its meeting dated 10.7.2004 the Sukh-Suvidha Committee had unanimously resolved to consider him ineligible and cancelled the 3 appointment. The Appellate Authority also considered the fact that thereafter respondent No.8 Pankaj Kumar has been appointed on the said post. There were other allegations made before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority that the petitioner could not produce the original certificates as he had deposited the same in the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur for training of Para Medical. Despite opportunity granted to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority the petitioner failed to produce any document or sufficient explanation in reply to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority. Moreover, this Court finds that nothing has been produced on the record by the petitioner to show that he pursued the matter immediately after his appointment had been cancelled in the year 2004 itself and much later in the year 2009 the matter has been taken up by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. Thus, on the sole ground of delay and laches the petitioner’s case was fit to be rejected by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority has looked into the merits of the matter and reached the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to produce original certificates. 4 Nothing has been brought on the record by the petitioner on which the order passed by the Appellate Authority, being the last forum of facts, could be overturned by this Court. Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities for payment of his stipend for the period during which he claims to have worked and in case the authorities are satisfied that he has worked during the said period he may be paid the contractual amount for the same. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/