IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2044 of 2011 1.Umesh Kumar Yadav, son of late Lukhai Yadav 2.Jay Prakash Kumar, son of Bisheshwar Prasad Yadav, both are resident of village Thalha, Panchayat Champa Nagar, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 3.Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Thakur, son of Shiv Narayan Yadav, resident of village Lokha, Panchayat Champa Nagar, P.S. Raghopur, District Supaul------------------------------------------------------petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, Supaul 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul 4.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur, Supaul 5.The Block Development Officer, Raghopur, Supaul 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Raghopur 7.The District Appellate Appointment Tribunal, Supaul 8.The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Champa Nagar, P.S. Raghopur, District Supaul 9.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Champa Nagar, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 10.Ranjit Kumar, son of Shiv Narayan Yadav, resident of village Thalha, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 11.Narendra Kumar, son of Kapileshwar Pd.Yadav, resident of village Lokha, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul 12.Surendra Thakur, son of Kuldip Thakur, resident of village Satanpatti, P.S.Raghopur, District Supaul--------------------- respondents ----------- For the petitioners :Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr.Kundan Bahadur Singh, SC 22 Mr.Shakti Suman, AC to SC 22 ----- 2. 18.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul in Complaint Case No.764 of 2 2009 (Annexure-7) by which the appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected. The matter relates to appointment of Shiksha Mitra in Champa Nagar Gram Panchayat under Raghopur Block of Supaul District in the year 2003. The petitioners were also applicants for the said appointments. However, at the end of the selection process respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 12 were appointed. The petitioners did not file any application before the then competent authority, namely, District Magistrate, within 30 days or even otherwise. From the materials on record it appears that they have filed a complaint only before the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Convener, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Supaul on 27.8.2003. Although the petitioners have placed on record identical letters dated 31.5.2003 and 28.6.2003 addressed to the District Magistrate yet there is no receiving of the said letters by the office of the District Magistrate, Supaul and thus no reliance can be placed on the same. The Appellate Authority has also made the observation that nothing specific were produced showing that the petitioners had earlier approached the competent authority in the matter. 3 Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C.No. 7751 of 2007, which was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 filed Complaint Case No. 764 of 2009 before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul in which intervention applications were filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties has dismissed the case disbelieving the case of irregularity raised by the petitioners and also holding that the private respondents having been converted into Panchayat Teachers there are legal impediments in setting aside their appointments. It has also considered the issues of limitation and delay alleged by learned counsel for the other side. The Appellate Authority has also disbelieved the claim of petitioner No.1 that he had filed his objection petition before the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners having secured higher marks they were entitled to have been appointed in preference to the private respondents who are second divisioners as compared to the petitioners who are first divisioners. It is thus submitted 4 that the Tribunal has erred in not cancelling the appointments of the private respondents. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as it is evident from the facts that have come on the record that so far as the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned they have not at any stage filed any application before the competent authority against the appointments as Shiksha Mitra of the private respondents. The so-called letters to the District Magistrate, Supaul not showing any receipt in the office of the District Magistrate cannot be of any aid to the petitioners. Moreover, so far as the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, they had not even moved before the High Court or before the Appellate Authority against the appointments of the private respondents and their own appointments. They were merely interveners in the case filed by petitioner No.1 before the Appellate Authority, that too, in the year 2009. It is thus evident that their cases are not fit for consideration. So far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, even he had not approached the competent authority at the relevant time within the period of 30 days or even thereafter and only in the year 2007 for the first 5 time he approached this Court in the matter. It is evident that the petitioners had lost interest in the matter of their appointment as Shiksha Mitra and only after the said post was converted into that of Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006 by Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 the petitioner No.1 jumped in the arena and approached this Court for setting aside the appointments of the private respondents. After such long delay and lapses specially in the matter which involves rights of third parties the claim of the petitioners was fit to be rejected on this count alone apart from the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority. This Court in its writ jurisdiction does not normally look into the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority unless the findings are perverse. Nothing has been brought on the record by the petitioners to show that the findings of the Appellate Authority are perverse. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, no ground has been made out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned 6 order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/