IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6003 of 2010 Santosh Kumar S/O Shri Nand Kishore Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Mehan, P.O., Panchayat & Block- Dandari Via Lakhminia, P.S.- Balia, Distt.- Begusarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia, Distt.- Begusarai 7. The Block Development Officer, Dandari, Distt.- Begusarai 8. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Begusarai 9. Badri Narayan Mishra, Panchayat Secretary, Rajkataemala Sisoni, Block- Dandari, Distt.- Begusarai 10. Smt. Indu Devi, The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj- Dandari, R/O Vill.- Mehan, P.O., Block & Panchayat- Dandari, Distt.- Begusarai 11. Upendra Narayan Singh, Retired Panchayat Secretary, Block- Dandarai, Distt.- Begusarai 12. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari, Head Mistress, Primary School, Mesahan, Vill.- Mehan, Distt.- Begusarai 13. Pushpa Kumari, Panchayat Teacher D/O Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Mehan, P.O.- Dandari Via Lakhminiya, Distt.- Begusarai 14. Roji, Panchayat Teacher D/O Shri Ramautar Paswan R/O Mohalla- Gachhi Tola, P.S.- Town Begusarai, Distt.- Begusarai 15. Nitu Kumari W/O Shri Navin Kumar R/O Vill. & P.O.- Baisa, P.S.- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria, At Present Posted As Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Navtolia, Dandara, Distt.- Begusarai -------------------- 02/ 29.08.2011 This writ petition has been filed by a public spirited person raising question of irregularities in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Teachers under Gram Panchayat Raj Dandari in the District of Begusarai. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.2.2010 passed by the learned District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai constituted under the provisions of Section 18 2 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) as amended by the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Amendment Rules, 2008. By the order impugned placed at Annexure-1, the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority, inter alia, on grounds of having been filed belatedly and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. reported in (1998)7 SCC 273. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that a private individual unconnected with the selection process, has no right to question the same, in public interest. It is undisputed that the petitioner is not an applicant to the selection process. It is stated that the petitioner having gathered knowledge of the irregularities engulfing the selection process in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Teachers in the Gram Panchayat, Dandari, was forced to raise the issue being a resident of the Panchayat, as well as on grounds that it also involved disbursement from the public exchequer. The facts of the matter, in brief, is that following the conclusion of the selection process for appointment of Panchayat Teachers on 5.4.2007, a complaint was filed by the petitioner on 14.2.2008, before the District Magistrate, Begusarai pointing out certain irregularities and which in turn was referred to the Block Development Officer, Dandari Block for enquiry and disposal. It is contended that while the said complaint remained pending for 3 enquiry by the Block Development Officer, Dandari, the rules for appointment of Panchayat Teachers, were amended and an appellate authority was constituted and vested with the powers to hear and dispose of the complaints arising out of any selection process to the post of Panchayat Teachers. In this background the petitioner filed a second complaint on 25.3.2009 before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority finding substance in his application initially directed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia to submit his report and which was submitted on 22.9.2009 supporting the allegations set out by the petitioner regarding the irregularities in the selection process. The said report is placed at Annexure-9 of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that even where the irregularities complained of by the petitioner stood substantiated by the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia, the appellate authority has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on technical grounds of having been filed belatedly and that as the petitioner was not a candidate in the selection process, he could not maintain the complaint in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Duryodhan Sahu (supra). It is the contention of the learned counsel that once the appellate authority initiated an enquiry on the complaint made by the petitioner and a report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balia holding that there were irregularities in the selection process, the appellate authority ought not to have dismissed the complaint of the petitioner 4 on the technical grounds set out in the impugned order as it resulted in perpetuation of illegality. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as indeed the petitioner was not a candidate to the selection process nor did take steps to file the complaint in question within the prescribed period of one week as provided under Rule 9(viii) of the Rules rather filed the first complaint on 14.2.2008 i.e. after a lapse of 10 months from the date of selection and the second complaint almost two years thereafter on 25.3.2009, the complaint indeed had been filed belatedly and was hit by the provisions of Rule 9(viii) of the Rules. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Duryodhan Sahu (supra), settles the position insofar as his locus to file the complaint, is concerned. For the reason aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)