IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6338 of 2011 Dinesh Kumar, son of Sri Rambriksha Yadav, resident of village- Lakhapur, P.O. Waina, P.S. Parasbigha, Block-Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Jehanabad through its Member. 3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Collector, Jehanabad 5. District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. 6. Block Development Officer, Block Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad. 7. Block Education Officer, Block Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad. 8. Gram Panchayat Lakhapur, Block Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad through its Panchayat Secretary. 9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Lakhapur, Block Ratni Faridpur, District-Jehanabad. 10. Panchayat Samiti Member, Gram Panchayat Lakhapur, Block Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad. 11. Arun Kumar, son of late Ramdhyan Singh, resident of village- Dhabapur, P.S. Parasbigha, Block Ratni Faridpur, District- Jehanabad…………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Narain,Advocate Mrs. Anju Narain, Advocate Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Shashi Priya Pathak, A.C. to AAG-7. ---------- 2. 11.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad in Complaint Case No.480 (3)/2011, by which it has ordered to cancel the appointment of 2 the petitioner as Panchayat teacher and to hold a fresh counselling of the petitioner and private respondent No.9, Arun Kumar. The petitioner is an untrained teacher, who was appointed as a Panchayat teacher in the second phase teachers appointment started in the year 2008. Although the process was started on 1.12.2008, but it appears that ultimately the petitioner was appointed on 14.8.2010 and joined on 23.8.2010. Against his appointment, the appeal was filed by respondent No.9, Arun Kumar, stating that the petitioner has been wrongly appointed, as he had higher marks than the petitioner. The stand taken on behalf of the petitioner before the authorities was that the respondent No.9, Arun Kumar, did not appear at the time of counselling. The admitted position is that notice was sent to Arun Kumar Under Certificate of Posting. Such notice is not recognized by this Court as a proper mode for serving a person. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appellate Authority has directed for re-counselling after informing the petitioner and respondent No.9, Arun Kumar, through registered post about the date of counselling after cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3 respondent No.9, Arun Kumar, having not appeared on the date of counselling he had no right to be considered and the petitioner was rightly appointed on the post of Panchayat teacher. It is further submitted that after a long gap of two years from the date of counselling, the appointment of the petitioner has been challenged. Both the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are not fit to be accepted. It is evident that nothing was done for a long period after counselling and ultimately, the petitioner has been appointed on 14.8.2010. The same cannot be a ground to hold that the appointment of the petitioner has been challenged after more than two years of the counselling. So far as the question of non-appearance of respondent No.9, Arun Kumar, at the time of counselling is concerned, admittedly the notice was sent to him Under Certificate of Posting, which does not appear to be a reliable mode of service of notice. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 of the Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )