IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15339 of 2010 1. PRAKASH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE RAMJI CHAUDHARY R/O MOH MIR TOLA, BEHIND ASHOK CINEMA, SAHARSA WARD NO.7, P.S.SAHARSA, DISTT-SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. MEMBERS DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SAHARSA, DISTT-SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SAHARSA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SAHARSA 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER SIMRI BAKHITYARPUR, SUB DIVISION SIMRI BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 8. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SIMRI BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIMRI BAKHITYARPUR, BLOCK-SIMRI BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT- SAHARSA 10. TARIYAMA GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH PANCHAYAT SECRETARY TARIYAMA, P.S.BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT- SAHARSA 11. MUKHIYA , TARIYAM GRAM PANCHAYAT P.S.BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TARIYAMA GRAM PANCHAYAT AT TARIYAMA P.S.BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT- SAHARSA 13. PRAKASH RAM S/O SRI BHIKHARI RAM R/O VILL TARIYAMA, P.S.BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PRAKHAND/PANCHAYAT TEACHER AT TURKI MIDDLE SCHOOL, TARIYAMA, PS.BAKHITYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA ----------- 02. 29.4.2011 Annexure-9 is the order passed by the appellate authority by virtue of which claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Panchayat teacher has been rejected, not only on the merit of the allegation made by the petitioner but also on the finding given that the petitioner did not file any objection against the appointments within the time specified by the 2 Block Development Officer. These findings cannot be disputed merely on the ground that the petitioner has annexed Annexure- 4, which does not show any receiving from any authority and an application of such kind therefore cannot be treated to be authentic to disbelieve the findings given by the appellate authority of filing of objection and appearance of the petitioner before the erstwhile appellate authority has been discussed in the concluding paragraph and the Court is convinced that the petitioner is trying to rake up an issue as an after-thought rather than based on serious violation of his right for appointment. It is a case of mis-opportunity and the findings being what they are, do not require any interference. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)