IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12433 of 2010 1. RAMESH SAH S/O LATE SHRI BISHWANATH SAH R/O VILL.- BUDHUWAN, P.O.- CHAMP, BLOCK- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 2. MAMTA KUMARI W/O BHOLA SINGH R/O VILL.- MAHUARY TOLA, POST CHAMP, BLOCK AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 3. SHASHI DEVI W/O SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- SALEYAN, POST- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ROHTAS, DHANWANTRI CHIKITSA KENDRA, SECOND FLOOR, RAJ COLONY, ROHTAS 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS 5. THE PRAKHAND VIKAS PADADHIKARI AKHORHI GOLA PRAKHAND, P.O.- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER PRAKHAND AKHORHI GOLA, P.O.- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PAKARIAN POST- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 8. THE SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PAKARIAN, POST- AKORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 9. JITENDRA GUPTA S/O LATE SUDAMA GUPTA R/O VILL.- BUDHUWAN, POST- CHAMP, PRAKHAND AKHORHI GOLA, ROHTAS 10. AKHILESH KUMAR S/O NATHUNI PRASAD R/O VILL.- SALEYAN, POST- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 11. SUNITA KUMARI W/O ANIL CHAUDHARY R/O VILL.- SALEYAN, POST- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 12. MEENA DEVI W/O MAHENDRA SINGH R/O VILL.- SLEYIAN, POST- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS 13. BABLOO KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI NIWASH SINGH R/O VILL.- MAHUARI, POST- CHAMP, PRAKHAND- AKHORHI GOLA, DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 2. 30.03.2011 Challenge is to the order dated 12.7.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sasaram contained in Annexure-11 which is impugned order in the present writ application. Petitioners claim for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be rejected for many a reasons including the fact that there was no clear material to show that the name of these petitioners figured for appointment based on the documents produced before the Appellate 2 Authority. In addition to that matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003-04. There is a limit within such issues ought to be adjudicated and decided. Merely because petitioners bring a letter addressed to the District Magistrate dated 6.4.2004 on record as contained in Annexure-3, it does not mean that their claim ought to be adjudicated and appointments made years ago heed to be adjudicated on one pretext or the other. The challenge to the appointments seem to be an after thought as petitioners have moved the Appellate Authority only in the year 2009. The rejection of the claim of petitioners is not only on the ground of delayed challenge but also on the merits as such. No interference is warranted with the said order. This writ application is dismissed. Devendra/ ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)