IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4852 of 2010 SUMITRA KUMARI W/O SRI RAMESH KUMAR R/O VILL.- BANCHAURI, P.S.- DUMRA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SITAMARHI 5. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RAMPUR PARORI, P.O.- BANCHAURI, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RAMPUR PARORI, P.S.- BANCHAURI, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 7. MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SITAMARHI 8. LALLAN PRASAD BHARTIYA @ LALLAN KUMAR BHARTIYA S/O RAM EKBAL SAH VILL.+ POST- BANCHAURI, P.S.- DUMRA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 9. HEADMASTER UPGRADED GOVT. OF MIDDLE SCHOOL, BANCHAURI ( HINDI ) null ANCHAL DUMRA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI ----------- 03 27.08.2010 An intervention application has been filed, which is misconceived. The intervener wants to make out his own case as against the petitioner on different footing. He has his own independent cause of action for which he has to take such steps as he may be advised but he cannot intervene in this case. The intervention application is, accordingly, dismissed. Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.8, who was complainant before the - 2 - District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi in Case No.29/10 being order dated 09.03.2010 and the learned counsel for the State, with consent of parties the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. The case relates to recruitment of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. Petitioner was selected and her contract was renewed from year to year several times before she was absorbed as Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006. This complaint has been registered before the Tribunal in the year 2010, challenging the selection and appointment as made in the year 2003. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8, the complainant before the Tribunal could not explain as to why right from 2003 to 2010 the complainant did not approach the appropriate statutory authority for relief within the time stipulated therein. It is, accordingly, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal lack the jurisdiction to entertain the claim in that regard. In that regards, regards being given to the case of Alok Kumar & ors Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. since reported in 2009(2) PLJR 929 and several other decisions following the same. In my view, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct and has to be accepted. Further, I may note from the order of the Tribunal itself that the complainant in the year 2003 was accused in a criminal case. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and at present he is in judicial custody. He has subsequently been accused in a kidnapping case as well. In my view, it was not a fit case for the Tribunal to interfere in and grant relief to the said person to become a Teacher in the Primary - 3 - School. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and all consequential orders passed upon the order of the Tribunal are accordingly set aside. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)