IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18337 of 2010 1. SHUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL KUMAR S/O SHIV NANDAN YADAV R/O VILL.- SAHUGARH KALU TOLA, P.O.- SAHUGARH, P.S. + DISTT.- MADHEPURA----------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT, MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA, THROUGH ITS MEMBER 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SAHUGAR, GRAM PANCHAYAT SAHUGARH NO.2, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 7. THE MUKHIA OF GRAMPANCHAYAT, SAHUGARH NO.2, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 8. ANMOL KUMAR S/O NARAYAN PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- SAHUGARH KALU TOLA, P.O.- SAHUGARH, P.S. + DISTT.- MADHEPURA -------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Shardanand Mishra Dhananjay Kr.Gupta Deepak Kumar, Advocates For the respondents :Mr.Vikash Kumar Pankaj, AC to GP 3 ----- 2. 22.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura in Appeal No. 119 of 2009 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. From a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the petitioner had with respect to the appointment 2 process of 2003 for the first time moved the Appellate Authority in the year 2009 and had not filed any objection to the same at any earlier point of time. It was for the said reason that the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner had at a much belated stage sought to raise a stale claim which he had not challenged on an earlier occasion. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court that the petitioner had at any earlier point of time raised any objection with respect to the appointment process. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura is not fit to be interfered with. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/