IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2252 of 2011 Veena Kumari, W/o Pahawari Saran Rai, Resident of village- Bania Chhapar, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Gopalganj Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Gopalganj 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kuchaikote Block, Gopalganj 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Barahara, Kuchaikote Block, Gopalganj 7. The Panchayat Sachiva, Gram Panchayat Raj, Barhara, Kuchaikote Block, Gopalganj 8. Kiran Rai D/o Raghunath Rai, resident of village Gopalpur, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Gopalganj 9. Reena Rai D/o Rajeshwar Rai, resident of village Gopalpur, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Gopalganj 10. Bandana Rai, W/o Dharmendra Rai, resident of village- Bania Chapar, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Gopalganj 11. Sandhya Devi, W/o Rajesh Rai, resident of village- Gopalpur, P.S. Gopalpur, District-Gopalganj ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. mritunjayay Kumar AC to AAG 14. --------------------------------- 2. 30.8.3011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks cancellation of appointment of respondent nos. 8 to 11 as Shiksha Mitra made in the years 2004-05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a complaint in 2 this regard before the District Magistrate, Gopalganj on 25.6.2008 but no proper action has been taken by the authorities on the same till date. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner had obtained the highest marks among all the candidates and thus she was entitled to be appointed in preference to the private respondents nos. 8 to 11. In the matter of appointment of Shiksha Mitra the Collector had been made the competent authority to look into the complaints which were filed before him within a period of 30 days. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any such complaint within 30 days or even thereafter within a reasonable period of time. The first complaint of the petitioner as per the writ petition itself was made on 25.6.2008 before the Collector. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appointment of the private respondents made 3-4 years prior to the complaint, cannot be made subject matter of the enquiry on the basis of such belated complaint. Evidently, the petitioner had no interest in the matter and only after the post of Shiksha Mitra was converted into Panchayat Teacher on 1.7.2006 3 and on learning about the same she has approached the Collector in the matter. The petitioner is thus guilty of delay and laches in the matter and no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to look into such a belated complaint in a writ petition which has been filed 6-7 years after the initial appointment. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)