IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1520 of 2010 1. SUNAIYANA DEVI THE MUKHIYA GRAMPANCHAYAT RAJ- MIAN KE BHATAKAN, P.O BANDHU SHRI RAM, BLOCK &DISTT- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, ANDAR, SIWAN 7. SURESH KUMAR YADAV, THE PANCHAYAT TEACHER, RAJKIYA PRIMARY GIRLS SCHOOL, GODHI, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-MIAN KE BHATKAN, BLOCK- ANDAR, DISTT- SIWAN ----------- 2 21.7.2010 Petitioner is the Mukhiya and challenges the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority by which petitioner’s objection to appointment of respondent no.7 as a Shiksha Mitra has been held to be valid. In my view , the case does not call for interference in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar- Vrs. The State of Bihar & ors. Since reported in 2009(2)PLJR 929 as also in view of Government’s notification which clearly stipulates that any person aggrieved by appointment of Panchayat Teacher must make a complain within thirty days. The appointment having been made more than five years back as Shiksha Mitra and the concerned respondent 2 having been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher, the challenge is too much delay. Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel in support of the writ application then submits that the appellate authority under rule 18 having been constituted in the year 2009, petitioner got a right to file the appeal in 2009 upon discovery of this illegality being successor in the office of Mukhiya as against the appointment made by the predecessor Mukhiya. I am afraid this contention does not hold so. By the successive notification, as referred to in the case of Alok Kumar (supra) it has been noted that each time appointment of Shiksha Mitra was notified. In those rules itself it was provided that any one aggrieved by the appointment, had a right to challenge the same within thirty days. Ultimately Shiksha Mitra post was abolished and working Shiksha Mitras were absorbed consequent to promulgation of Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Condition of Service)Rules, 2006. Rule 18 thereof provided that any complain against the appointment shall be made to Block Development Officer within thirty days. Admittedly though the petitioner is a local resident and fully aware of the relationship did not object. In 2008 with effect from 2009 rule 18 was substituted and the appellate tribunal was constituted. Once again the State Government notified by notification no. 3716 dated 23.10.2008 while constituting the tribunal it clearly provided that 3 applications have to be made to the tribunal within thirty days of the appointment. That was also not done. Mere plea of subsequent discovery of this illegality committed on one and a half decade back would not give right to the petitioner to challenge the same at this late stage. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)