IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15585 of 2010 1. SANGITA SHAH D/O SRI JAI MANGAL SHAH R/O VILL DUMAR BANA, P.O.BAIRGANIA, P.S.BAIRGANIA, DISTT-SITAMARHI-------- -------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SITAMARHI 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAIRGANIA, SITAMARHI 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF PACHATAKI PANCHAYAT BLOCK- BAIRGANIA, DISTT-SITAMARHI 7. THE MUKHIYA OF PACHATAKI PANCHAYAT BLOCK-BAIRGANIA, DISTT-SITAMARHI 8. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SITAMARHI---------------------RESPONDENTS --------- 2 2.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-7 is the order passed by District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitmarhi by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Panchayat teacher has been rejected. After hearing the petitioner and not being satisfied with the submission of the petitioner who did not produce any evidence of having filed objection against her non- selection within a reasonable time before the then appellate authority no indulgence was shown. What is sought to be produced before this Court was never produced before the appellate authority and if that is there the Court cannot declare the decision of the appellate authority to be wrong when the necessary material before the appellate authority was never produced. To that extent the findings of the appellate authority cannot be faulted. Submission of learned counsel on the merit of the case is that the petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 233 in terms - 2 - of annexure-3. He submits that the percentage calculated by the authority is wrong and percentage of marks is not properly calculated and that is why she has been ousted from the zone of consideration. Whatever be the actual state of calculation, if the claim was not raised before the concerned authority within a reasonable time frame then the appointment of the petitioner cannot be done after more than five years as the petitioner has now some wishy-washy kind of evidence which was produced before the appellate authority and cannot be done so now. This writ application is dismissed as the impugned order is not erroneous. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)