IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8910 of 2010 1. KAMESHWAR RAY S/O LATE RAM LAGAN RAI R/O VILL.- KHIRKHAUAN, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, VAISHALI 3. THE S.D.M., HAJIPUR, VAISHALI 4. THE B.D.O., BHAGWANPUR BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI 5. GRAM KACHAHARI SAHATHA THROUGH ITS SARPANCH UNDER SAHATHA GRAM PANCHAYAT IN BHAGWANPUR BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI 6. THE SARPANCH, GRAM KACHAHARI, SAHATHA, BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI 7. SUNIL KUMAR S/O GOPAL JEE PRASAD R/O VILL.- HAJIPUR NAKHASH, ANDAR KILA, P.S. HAJIPUR (TOWN) IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr.A.Amanullah, G.A.-IV and Mr.T.Khan, AC to G.A.-IV. ------------ 2 30.03.2011 In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order of the Collector, Vaishali dated 19.02.2010 passed in his appeal no.28/2008-09, as contained in Annexure-2, by which, his appeal, against the order of the S.D.O. dated 19.05.2008, as contained in Annexure-1, has been dismissed. The short facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Nyay Mitra on 19.03.2008. Respondent no.7 who was also a candidate filed his objection under Rule 12 2 of the Rules before the S.D.O. against the appointment of the petitioner. As per his case, in the merit list his name was at serial no.14, whereas the name of the petitioner was at serial no.18. However, when he appeared before the Sarpanch on the date fixed for selection, he was asked by him to come on 26.03.2008. Hence, he went back. But after few days he came to know that, on 19.03.2008 itself, petitioner was appointed. Thereafter, he filed an application under R.T.I. Act on 24.03.2008 in respect to which he received formal communication that petitioner had been appointed on 19.03.2008 itself. Therefore, he filed his complaint before the S.D.O. on 21st of April, 2008. The compliant was heard and the S.D.O., who, by order dated 19.05.2008 allowed the complaint and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Against the said order, in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, petitioner moved in appeal before the Collector which was considered and dismissed by the Collector by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 submits that before the S.D.O. petitioner was not heard. Hence it was not considered by the S.D.O. that, on 19.03.2008, the respondent had not appeared before the Selection Committee and, therefore, this petitioner was appointed. He also submits that the complaint of respondent no.7, filed before the S.D.O., was beyond time. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce a copy of the memo of appeal filed before the Collector which he has produced. From the memo of appeal, it appears that the petitioner did not take a ground in his appeal that he was not heard before the S.D.O. However, he has taken the ground that the complaint of respondent no.7 was beyond time and respondent no.7 had not appeared before the Selection Committee on 19.03.2008. From the order of the learned Collector, it appears that the grounds taken by the petitioner has been considered and has not been found favour with. This Court finds that the stand of respondent no.7 in his complaint was that when on 19.03.2008 he met the Surpanch, he was asked to come on 26.03.2008. Therefore, 4 he could not come to know that the selection process was held and on 19.03.2008 itself petitioner was appointed. When after few days, he came to know about the same, he filed an application under R.T.I. Act and he got confirmed only on 24.03.2008 that the petitioner had already been appointed on 19.03.2008. Therefore, his date of knowledge of appointment was 24.03.2008 and within one month of that, i.e. on 21st of April, 2008 he filed his complaint. Clearly, the complaint was within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge to him of appointment of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that respondent no.7 had not appeared before the Selection Committee also does not have much substance. The fact that only after few days respondent no.7 filed an application under the R.T.I. Act and received information that the petitioner stood already appointed, shows that respondent no.7 was very much interested in the appointment and, therefore, the bald plea of the petitioner that respondent no.7 had not appeared before the Selection Committee cannot be accepted. 5 In the circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order of the Collector dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)