IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2280 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Satendra Prasad, resident of village and post Bara Jairam, P.S.Chiraiya, District East Champaran-----------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate/Collector of East Champaran 3.The District Education Officer, East Champaran 4.The Block Development Officer, Chiraiya, East Champaran, Motihari 5.The Mukhiya, Panchayat Bara Jairam, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran 6.The Gram Sevak Gram Panchayat Bara Jai Ram, Block Chiraiya, District East Champaran 7.Jaleshwar Sah, son of Sri Dharichan Saw, resident of village and P.O. Bara Jairam, P.S.Chiraiya, District East Champaran 8.Radheshyam Thakur, son of Kamal Thakur, resident of village Panchsalwa, P.O. Bara Jairam, P.S. Chiraiya-----------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra,Advocate For the State :Mr.Shambhu Nath, AC to AAG 3 ----- 3. 30.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran in Case No.474 of 2009 and the order dated 2.12.2010 passed in Case No. 622 of 2010 by the same authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner relates to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. It has come out in the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 that the petitioner had not filed the complaint against the 2 said appointment process completed in the year 2005 at any earlier point of time either before the Sukh Suvidha Committee or the 3-Man Enquiry Committee appointed by the Collector. For the said reason the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.11.2009. The subsequent Case No.622 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and others was also rejected in view of the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any factual error in the order of the Appellate Authority. This Court does not find any error in the order of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had for the first time made complaint against the process of appointment of 2005 after several years. In the matter of such appointments which give rise to third party rights it is expected that any person aggrieved by the process of appointment ought to approach the competent authority with due expedition. According to the relevant Circular of the State Government in relation to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra it was clearly provided that any complaint with respect to the said appointment has to be 3 made before the Collector within a period of 30 days. The petitioner has for the first time approached the competent authority after a delay of more than three years. Hence, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Authority. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/