IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7870 of 2010 1. MD. AFZAL HUSSAIN ANSARI S/O MD. AYUB ANSARI R/O VILL.- KOILI, BLOCK- BATHNAHA, P.S.- BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SITAMARHI 3.THE TEACHER APPOINTMENT/ENGAGEMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SITAMARHI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SITAMARHI 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BATHNAHA, SITAMARHI 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BATHNAHA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 7. PRAMUKH, BATHNAHA BLOCK DISTT.- SITAMARHI ----------- 2. 22.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi as also the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No.- 49/2009, by which they have rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for appointment as Block Teacher in Bathnaha Block in the District of Sitmarhi in the year 2006 along with others. Since the petitioner was not selected, he filed an appeal under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary 2 Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 before the appellate authority at that time, that is, the Deputy Development Commissioner. By order dated 11.12.2007, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitmarhi rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have obtained a copy of the said order under R.T.I. Act on 29.5.2008. However, the said order was not challenged before the appropriate forum. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Case No.- 49/2009 before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, which has been made the Appellate Authority after the amendment of Rule 18 in the year 2008. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority has, by the impugned order dated 2.6.2009, rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal before the then Appellate Authority, the Deputy Development Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. He is, however, unable to satisfy this Court as to how an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the same provision can be maintained by him merely because Rule 18 was amended and the statutory 3 authority to hear the appeal has also been changed when the order of the earlier Appellate Authority, namely, Deputy Development Commissioner passed on 11.12.2007, has already acquired finality. This Court is of the view that the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority is not fit to be quashed since it has rightly held that the appeal having been decided by the Deputy Development Commissioner on 11.12.2007, the fresh appeal filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected on that ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to assail the order dated 11.12.2007 of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi, but in view of the fact that he has not challenged the said order and allowed it to become final, he cannot be permitted to challenge the same on merits with respect to an appointment process relating to the year 2006 at this belated stage. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )