IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13345 of 2009 1. SUCHIT KUMAR JHA S/O- GOPAL JHA VILL- DAMODARPUR, P.S- BENIPATTI, DISTT- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR , PATNA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , MADHUBANI 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MADHUBANI 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BENIPATTI, MADHUBANI 5. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BANIPATTI, MADHUBANI 6. MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT BANKATTA, BENIPATTI, MADHUBANI 7. KAMLESH KUMAR JHA S/O- DEVENDRA JHA VILL- AAHPUR, P.O- DAMODARPUR P.S- BANIPATTI , DISTT- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 07.01.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to the respondent- District Magistrate, Madhubani and the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bankatta, Block-Benipatti, Madhubani to consider his case for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra/Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner’s case is that he had applied for the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra in the year, 2005, but illegally, he was not selected and in his place, one Kamal Kumar Jha was selected. As stated in the writ application, he filed several representations before District Magistrate, Madhubani, District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani but there was no response, finally in the year, 2007, he filed requisition for information under the Right to Information Act. Even then, no information was supplied tol him. Finally, the case was instituted before the State Information Commission vide Case No. 11500/2008-09 and then, an 2 information has been supplied to him by District Education Extension Officer, Benipur from which it transpires that both the petitioner and Kamlesh Kumar Jha had same marks but preference was given to Kamlesh Kumar Jha on the basis of his marks obtained in intermediate examination. It is also mentioned that Kamlesh Kumar Jha has duly been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher as provided under rule 20(1) of Bihar Panchyat Teachers (Appointments and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Now case of the petitioner cannot be considered. I find that the petitioner cannot claim for any relief for the reason assigned in Annexure-4/1 and on the ground that the cause of action arose to the petitioner in the year, 2006 itself but he did not pursue the matter properly. In case his objection was not being considered by the District Magistrate, he could have approached this court at the relevant time. He wasted his four years’ time. In the meantime, the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra itself became non- existent and the person, who was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher as per rule 20(1) of 2006 Rules. No direction can be issued to any authority for petitioner’s appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. This writ application is dismissed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)