IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2347 of 2011 Manish Kumar Bhartiya, son of Nand Lal Prasad, resident of village Juafar, P.S. and Anchal Chhaudadano, District East Champaran--------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 3.The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal through member, District East Champaran, Motihari 4.The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran at Motihari 5.The Block Development Officer, Block Chhaudadano, District East Champaran at Motihari 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Chhaudadano, District East Champaran at Motihari 7.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Juafar, P.S. Chhaudadano, District East Champaran at Motihari 8.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Juafar, P.S. Chhaudadano, District East Champaran at Motihari 9.Nand Kishore Prasad, son of Ram Bilash Sah, resident of village Juafar, P.S.and Anchal Chhaudadano, District East Champaran------------respondents ----------- 2. 30.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran, Motihari in Case No. 578 of 2008 filed by the petitioner dismissing his case. From a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority has considered the fact that the petitioner has not filed any application before the competent authority when the appointment was made in the year 2003. He has noted the fact that the petitioner had approached the District 2 Superintendent of Education, who has considered the same and issued directions to the concerned Panchayat in the matter, whereafter appointments have been made; however, the petitioner has not filed any complaint before the competent authority after the same, who was the Collector at the relevant time. It has also been noted in the impugned order that the petitioner after a long gap filed complaint in the year 2007 with the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister and treated the same as first complaint by the petitioner. In my view, the same also not being before the competent authority cannot be considered a proper complaint as with respect to appointment of Shiksha Mitra made in the year 2003 the competent authority was the District Magistrate and any application ought to have been made before the District Magistrate expeditiously; in a subsequent Notification 30 days period was also fixed. The petitioner not having done so, on account of delay and laches he cannot be permitted to assail third party rights which have arisen and continued over such a long period of time, after more than five years of the appointment. 3 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/