IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11149 of 2009 SHASHI KUMARI SINHA, Wife of Sri Ram Krit Singh, resident of village – Madhopur, P.O. Lakhawar, P.S. Ghosi, District – Jehanabad. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Jehanabad. 5. The D.S.E., Jehanabad. 6. The B.D.O., Block Kako, District – Jehanbad. 7. The B.E.E.O., Block Kako, District – Jehanabad. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Badhauna, Block Kako, District – Jehanabad. 9. The Panchayat Secretar4y, Gram Panchayat, Badhauna, Block Kako, District – Jehanabad. 10. The Zila Sikshak Niyojan Pradhikar, Jehanabad through its Secretary, District – Jehanabad. 11. Harendra Chandra Dutta, Son of not known, Member, Zila Shikshak Niyojan Appeliya Pradhikar, Jehanabad. 12. Shyama Rani, Wife of Ram Vijay Kumar Singh, Village – Badhauna, P.O. – Lakhawar, District – Jehanabad, through Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Badhauna Block Kako, District – Jehanabad. ….. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 27.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has filed this application for a direction to the concerned authorities of the Gram Panchayat, Badhauna to fill up vacant posts of Panchayat teacher advertised under 2006 Rules for appointment, but still no appointments made. The petitioner’s grievance is that vacancies advertised under 2006 rules should be filled on the basis of panel prepared, and these posts should not be re-advertised under 2008 Rules. These - 2 - vacancies should be treated as a vacant posts and petitioner, whose name is in the panel of selected candidate as well as other persons, whose names were earlier recommended, but did not join, they should be adjusted against these vacant posts. I find that the relief, which has been prayed by the petitioner, cannot be allowed considering the fact that as per the policy decision of the Government, posts which remained vacant now can be filled only by inviting fresh appointment process in the second phase of Panchayat Teachers appointment, under 2008 Rules. Another reason for not considering the petitioner’s prayer is that petitioner did not raise any objection at the relevant time in 2007, when for the first time name of respondent no. 12 was recommended for being appointed on the post, though she ultimately did not join the post. The petitioner if at all had any grievance against the recommendation of respondent no. 12, she had remedy by filing objection before the concerned Block Development Officer under 2006 Rules for deciding such objections. Since no objection was filed within the statutory period, at later stage rightly it was not considered by the appellate authority. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)