IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.951 of 2011 Digvijay Kumar, son of Sri Ram Lobhit Paswan, resident of village Bhorha Tola, Gousnagar, P.O. Patahi, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi ----petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi 3.District Employment Unit through Chairman District Board, Sitamarhi 4.Assistant Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi, Tirhut Pramandal 5.The Appellate Authority, District Teachers Niyajan Committee, Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi through Member---------------respondents ----------- 2. 29.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondents to allow him to appear before the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi for re-counseling for appointment on the post of Zila Parishad Teacher. The petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Zila Parishad Teacher. A notice was published in the newspaper on 17.6.2010 about the various dates in the process of selection but the date of counseling was not indicated therein. The petitioner’s case is that no specific information was given to him about the date of counseling and he continued to make enquiries and finally when he went to the office of the Zila Parishad on 12.7.2010 he learnt that the counseling had already been held on 2 11.7.2010. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi, but by the order dated 7.8.2010 the same was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a resident of remote village ought to have been given an opportunity for re-counseling as he could not get proper information about the date for counseling. From a perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority it appears that regarding the date for counseling an advertisement was published on 6.7.2010 in daily Hindi newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ stating that the counseling would be held on 11.7.2010 and the candidates were required to present themselves along with their original mark sheets and certificates. On 11.7.2010 the process of employment was completed by preparing a final selection list of the candidates who had appeared for the counseling. For the said reason the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was not aware of the dates and in any case if fresh opportunity was given to the petitioner then the process of appointment 3 would never come to an end. For the said reason, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court is in agreement with the same. The authorities had issued a public notice in a widely circulated and local newspaper and thus it was for the petitioner to make himself aware of such advertisement, being a candidate. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner being a resident of remote village and such information may not have reached there, the same can in no case give any benefit to the petitioner as it was for the petitioner, as a candidate expecting an appointment, to have taken steps to ensure that the information published in the newspaper would become known to him. The respondent authorities have rightly not accepted his plea of inability to appear on 11.7.2010 on account of not learning about the notice published in the newspaper. In the above circumstances, the writ application must fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)