IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.603 of 2010 AMRENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE BHAGBAT PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE - KUMHAR 80, P.O - KUMHRA 80, P.S - GARHPURA, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI.--------PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ,THROUGH THE SECRETARY,PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR , PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION , BEGUSARAI CUM CORDINATOR DISTRICT MASS EDUCATION PROGRAMME, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GARHPURA BLOCK, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI. 5. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, CHERIA BARIYARPUR, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, GARHPURA , DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI. 7. THE SECRETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KUMHRASO, BLOCK - GRAHPURA , DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI. 8. SRI AMAN KUMAR S/O SRI BISHWANATH CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE - KUMHRASO, P.O - KUMHRASO, P.S - GARHPURA , DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI. ------RESPONENTS/RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Harishankar Roy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, G.P.14 4 28-04-2010 I.A. No.3053 of 2010. This is an application for condonation of delay of 12 days. Before adverting to the issue whether notice should be sent on the question of limitation, we have 2 thought it apposite to dwell upon merits of the case. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.10073 of 2006 on 29.1.2010. Basic facts are, respondent no.8 was appointed as SIKSHA MITRA on 9.2.2006. The appellant had challenged this appointment, as a result of the same the appointment of respondent no.8 was set aside vide order dated 29.9.2006. In the meantime, a set of rules, namely, Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers Appointment and Service Condition Rules, 2006 came into force. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that he could have been appointed as SIKSHA MITRA instead of respondent no.8. Be it noted, appointment process which was in vogue while respondent no.8 was appointed under the rules was totally different. In view of aforesaid, the appellant cannot claim to have been appointed once appointment of respondent no.8 was cancelled. The appellant can seek appointment within the parameters of rules in future. 3 With the aforesaid observation the appeal stands dismissed. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)