IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15831 of 2009 1. RUPA KUMARI D/O SHAILENDRA PRASAD ROY @ SHAILENDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY R/OVILL SIHKUND, P.S. KHARIK, DISTT- BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT C/O RAVINDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDING AT VILL - BARETA, P.S.FALKA, DISTT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR null null 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 4. APPELLATE AUTHORITIES DISTT. TEACHER EMPLOYMENT KATIHAR, P.S. & DISTT- KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR, P.S. & DISTT- KATIHAR 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KATIHAR, P.S. & DISTT- KATIHAR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FALKA , P..S FALKA , DISTT- KATIHAR 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER FALKA , P..S FALKA , DISTT- KATIHAR 9. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SOHTHA UTARI P.S. FALKA, DISTT- KATIHAR 10. THE SECRETARY , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ , SOHTHA UTARI P.S. FALKA, DISTT- KATIHAR 11. PANCHAYAT SAMITI SADASYA PANCHAYAT, SOHTHA UTARI P.S. FALKA, DISTT- KATIHAR 12. SMT. SHAWETA KUMARI H/O RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILL- PIRMOKAM, P.S. FALKA, DISTT- KATIHAR ----------- 3 11..3.2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar in Appeal No. 1621 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner. The appeal has been rejected on the ground that after three years of the appointment for 2 the first time, this objection has been raised by the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has no grievance, so far appointment is concerned, immediately after the completion of the process of appointment, One Sweta Kumari filed objection against the appointment of Rajani Kumari and others, before the Appellate Tribunal and an order was passed cancelling appointment of nine persons even without issuing any notice to the appointed candidates. Rajani Kumari and others moved before the High Court by filing CWJC No. 15222 of 2007, which was allowed by order dated 6.3.2009, quashing the impugned order on account of its being passed in violation of rule of natural justice. It was observed that once any person is appointed on regular basis in a government employment, he cannot be terminated from service without holding proper inquiry or without giving an opportunity of hearing. It was also directed that, in case petitioners/appointees are still continuing on their posts, status-quo shall be maintained, till final order is passed. Paragraph 13 of the writ application indicates in the light of Rajani Kumari and others’, petitioner also filed her representation before the Tribunal, but no-where it is disclosed as to what order 3 was passed by the Tribunal, in case of Rajani Kumari and others, on remand; whether their appointment was held to be valid or again quashed by the Tribunal? In case their appointments were held valid, certainly there would not be any vacancy, against which petitioner can claim her appointment. Petitioner has challenged appointment of Sweta Kumari, after much delay. I do not find any error in the impugned order, as appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the point of limitation. After three years of the completion of the process of appointment, petitioner for the first time has raised objection before the Tribunal. The writ application stands dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar