IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20141 of 2010 Dilip Kumar, son of Dukh Bhajan pandit resident of village- Gouripur, Ward No.12, P.S. Singeshwar District- Madhepura. ………………. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Madhepura 3. District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura. 4. Block Development Officer, Singeshwar, District- Madhepura. 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Singeshwar, District-Madhepura 6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Gauripur Block Singeshwar District- Madhepura 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gauripur Block Singeshwar, District-Madhepura. 8. Member, District Teacher Selection Appellate Authority, Madhepura 9. Pandit Gopal Kumar s/o Bharat Pandit, resident of village Kumhartola Gauripur, P.O. Patori, P.S.Singeswar, District-Madhepura. 10. Sanjay Kumar Mehta s/o Bhuneshwar Mehta, resident of Mohalla-Shivpuri Ward No.8, P.O. + P.S. Singeshwar, District- Madhepura…… Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma,Advocate For the State: Mr. G.P.V. -------- 2. 14.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.3.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground on which the appeal has been dismissed is that the same was time barred as per the letter No. 681 dated 14.5.2009 of the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department. It is submitted that no such time limit has been 2 prescribed. So far as the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to hear appeal is concerned, while under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 as amended in 2008, it is correct to say that no time limit has been prescribed, yet under the general principles of law any person aggrieved by an appointment process is expected to approach the competent authority within a reasonable period of time as third party rights are also involved. The petitioner’s grievance regarding appointment process is of the year 2005, whereas he has filed the appeal in the year 2009 before the Appellate Authority. The only explanation is that he filed several representations before other authorities. Even under the earlier guidelines and thereafter under the Rules of 2006, the provision for entertainment of complaints had been made and thus, it is not open to the petitioner to raise a plea that he has been filing representations here and there. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the selection process, he ought to have approached the competent authority at the relevant time. Not having done so, certainly the petitioner is not entitled to be heard by the competent authority. In the above circumstances, this Court does not consider 3 it a fit case for interference with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )