IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1830 of 2011 Gangesh Kumar Singh, son of Shri Janardan Singh, resident of village Ghorsar, Police Station Kusheshwar Asthan, District Darbhanga ----petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga 4.The Block Development Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga 5.The Panchayat Secretary, Aurahi Panchayat, Block Kusheshwar Asthan, District Darbhanga 6.The Mukhiya, Aurahi Panchayat, Kusheshwar Asthan, District Darbhanga 7.Ashok Kumar, son of Shri Sukhdeo Kamti, resident of village Parmanandpur, P.O. Dinamo, P.S.Kusheshwar Asthan, District Darbhanga 8.The District Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Balbhadrapur, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga through its Registrar/Secretary- respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Abhijeet Kr. Lal, Advocate For the State :Mr.Sunil Kumar, AC to GP 23 ---- 2. 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.723 of 2009 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 in which the respondent No.7 Ashok Kumar was appointed. Admittedly the petitioner in terms of the relevant Circular did not file 2 complaint against the appointment process before the District Magistrate within 30 days as provided in the said Circular. For the first time in the year 2007 the petitioner filed representations before various authorities including the District Magistrate. Since no action had been taken by the respondent authorities the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.16249 of 2008 and by order dated 4.12.2009 the same was disposed of on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the application giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The petitioner thereafter moved before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga, which has by the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 dismissed his case. The Appellate Authority while considering the merit aspect of the matter found that the respondent No.7 had higher weightage of 15 as against the weightage of the petitioner at 10. It has also come to the conclusion that respondent No.7 is the original resident of Aurahi Panchayat and someone else under conspiracy making his forged signature filed an application in the Dinamo 3 Panchayat. However, it also came to the conclusion that the matter was time barred as the appeal was not filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate within the prescribed time. The case of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority ought to have considered the various documents filed by the petitioner for coming to the proper conclusion and the matter ought not to have been rejected merely on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the order of the Appellate Authority has not only considered the fact that the petitioner had delayed in approaching the Appellate Authority but also he had not filed any objection against the appointment process of Shiksha Mitra within the time prescribed in the relevant Circular, rather the same had been done after a lapse of substantial period of time and thus the impugned order requires no interference. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order dated 1.9.2010 of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga is not fit to be interfered with. The 4 relevant provision of the Circular at the time of appointment clearly provided for filing of complaint against the appointment process within 30 days before the District Magistrate but the petitioner chose to remain silent for a long period of time and after nearly two years started filing representations in the matter. The authorities were not obliged to consider the representations of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was thus not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had filed the appeal after a gross delay. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/