IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2029 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 210 of 2009 ====================================================== Ravi Shankar Mahto son of Sri Ram Pukar Mahto, esdent of village Serha Chatti P.O. Sidhauli P.S. Ashok Paper Mill Circle Hayaghat Distt. Darbhanga .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 4. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Darbhanga 5. The District Welfare officer, Darbhanga 6. The Block Development Officer, Hayaghat, Darbhanga 7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Raj Sidhauli, Block Hayaghat, Distt. Darbhanga 8. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Sidhauli, Block Hayaght, Distt. Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 3 30-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court, by the order under appeal dated 24.9.2010 has dismissed CWJC No.210 of 2009 preferred by the appellant after noticing that the writ petition was filed after a delay of more than three years after appointments were made on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State before the Writ Court disclosed that all the posts including that for scheduled caste category were filled up with other candidates and no private person appointed to the post of Shiksha Mitra either under the general category or under the reserved category has been impleaded. Patna High Court LPA No.2029 of 2010 (3) dt.30-11-2011 2 In our view, the Writ Court rightly dismissed the writ petition after noticing the delay and the fact that after enforcement of new Rules in 2006 the post of Shiksha Mitra is now no more in existence and has been replaced by post of Panchayat Teacher. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted on the basis of Annexure- 4 that in September 2006 after the new Rules had come into force appellant submitted a fresh application for recruitment to the post of Block Teacher/ Panchayat Teacher. He wants the State to act on the basis of aforesaid application. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that recruitment process initiated after the enforcement of 2006 Rules has already been completed and the appellant has obviously not been selected and appointed on the basis of his application. We are unable to go into this aspect of the matter because necessary facts have not been pleaded from either side. The appellant, if so advised, may pursue his remedy in respect of his application for fresh recruitment filed in September 2006 in accordance with law. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)