IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15215 of 2010 1. RAM LAKHAN PRASAD S/O RAM CHARITAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- BALA BIGHA, P.O.- NAILY, P.S.- NIMCHAKBATH, DISTT.- GAYA--- ------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NALANDA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA 5. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NALANDA 6. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CO-OPERATION, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA 7. SANJEET KUMAR SHARMA S/O RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SHARMA R/O VILL.- DAULATPUR, P.O.- CHHOTI PALI, P.S.- NARHAT, DISTT.- NAWADA-----------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 28.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-2 is the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda at Biharsharif. Dispute raised by the petitioner is that even though he had higher percentage of marks in the counselling register person with lower percentage was entertained and thereafter the opportunity of appointment has been denied to him. He wanted a direction in his favour to be appointed on the post of teacher in Nagar Parishad, Biharsharif. Though it is a short order passed by the appellate authority but the authority has taken note of the fact that the percentage of marks indicated against the petitioner in the counselling register was duly certified to be correct as the petitioner has put his signature. Thereafter based on the factual position thereon the appointment came to be made way back in the year 2006. It is only now that the petitioner has made a grievance - 2 - on the ground that he came to know of such fact only in the year 2009 and therefore injustice done to him should be undone. The Court has certain reservation in accepting the plea or stand of the petitioner for the simple reason that if there was any discrepancy in the percentage of marks which was calculated or indicated in the counselling register the petitioner should have verified it before his signature was taken as affirmation of the said fact. The respondents have gone ahead based on the merit list prepared on the percentage of marks, counselling was held and appointments came to be made in the year 2006. Now same cannot be interfered with or ought to be entertained after so many years i.e. in the year 2011 when other persons had already acquired a right. If the petitioner has not taken any steps with regard to his grievance at the appropriate time the respondents alone cannot be blamed for that. The Court does not want to interfere with the order impugned as of today in the above stated background. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)