IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1592 of 2011 Indu Kumari, W/o Sri Pankaj Kumar, resident of village Ramnagar, P.O. Ratwara, P.S.Aurai, District Muzaffarpur------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through Secretary, Bihar Primary Teachers, Patna 2.District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur 3.District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur 4.District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 5.Block Development Officer, Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 6.Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kafen Choudhary, Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 7.Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Kafen Choudhary, Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 8.Smt.Neelam Kumari, D/o Sita Ram Rai, village Dharmpur, P.O.Balpi Musharari, District Muzaffarpur-------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Diwakar Prasad Karn Chandrashekhar Anand,Advocates For the State :Mr.Anil Kr.Singh, A.C. to S.C.VI ----- 2. 08.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur by which the application of the petitioner with respect to appointment of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006 has been rejected. The petitioner was an applicant for the said post but was not selected. The admitted position is that the petitioner after her non-selection did not approach the then statutory authority under Rule 18, namely, Block Development Officer. Much later on 6.4.2009 she filed an 2 appeal before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority complaining that the candidates who had less marks had been appointed and thus their appointments should be cancelled and the petitioner should be appointed. On a consideration of the fact that the petitioner did not move the earlier statutory authority although the process of appointment was completed on 30.11.2007 and for the first time the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority in April, 2009, by the impugned order dated 6.10.2009 the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner as time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having filed several representations before the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Education her appeal ought to have been considered by the District Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Rule 18 for the filing of appeal and the order rejecting the appeal as time barred is legally not correct. It is true that there is no specific period of limitation prescribed for the filing of an appeal before the District 3 Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, yet since third party rights are involved it is expected that any person aggrieved by the process of appointment ought to approach the Appellate Authority with due expedition. The petitioner has not approached the then competent authority under Rule 18, namely, Block Development Officer. The filing of representations before the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Education can be of no avail as they had no statutory role to play after the process of appointment was over and only an application under Rule 18 before the Block Development Officer could be entertained which the petitioner did not pursue. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/