IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12353 of 2008 KUMARI RAJNI, W/O MUKESH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE- MAJHOUR, P.O.-MAJHOUR, P.S.-NANPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NANPUR BLOCK, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAJHOUR, P.O. AND P.S.-NANPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 10. HARI NARAYAN RAI, THE THEN PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY IN JOINT CHARGE OF SIRSI AND NANPUR PANCHAYAT, BLOCK- NANPUR, P.S.-NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 11. MANJU DEVI, W/O BAIDYANATH SINGH @ BHOLA SINGH, THE THEN UP-MUKHIYA, VILLAGE- MAJHOUR, P.O.-MAJHOUR, P.S.-NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 12. SHABNAM PRAVIN, D/O MD.HASSAN REJAN, R/O VILLAGE-THIKHA, P.O.-THIKA, P.S.-NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 13. KUMARI RINA, W/O SUDHAKAR MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-MAJHOUR, P.O.-MAJHOUR, P.S.- NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 14. NUSRAT PRAVIN, D/O ZIAUL HAQUE, R/O VILLAGE-MAJHOUR, P.O.-MAJHOUR, P.S.- NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2 Grievance of the petitioner is that in the selection process held for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 petitioner was an applicant. She had submitted her certificate including the Matriculation certificate. She had higher marks also. Still a person with lesser marks was appointed as Shiksha Mitra and the petitioner’s case was ignored. In connection with her grievance she had filed her complaint before the Panchayat Secretary on 29.05.2005; a complaint before the B.D.O. on 05.07.2005; a complaint before the District Superintendent of Education on 15.09.2005. Still no action was taken on her complaint. It appears that the petitioner had raised her grievance in time before the concerned authorities with regard to non- consideration of her case although she had higher marks. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules, in terms of 2008 3 amendment, within four weeks from today. If such a complaint is filed, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties, shall call for the original records and shall decide the matter positively within two months from the date of receipt of the complaint from the petitioner on merits and without going into the question of limitation. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)