IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.644 of 2011. 1.Ajay Kumar son of Sri Sahdeo Prasad, R/0 village Chhabilapur, P.S.Manpur, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 2.Gajadhar Ravidas son of Sri Chandeshwar Ravidas, R/o village Makhdumpur P.S.Manpur, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 3.Usha Kumari wife of Sri Sanoj Sharma, R/o village Baroti, P.S.Deep Nagar, Biharsharif, Nalanda. Appellants. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3.The District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda. 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda. 5.The Block Development Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 7.The Area Education Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 8.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chhabilapur, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 9.Ghanshyam Prasad son of Sachidanand Singh, R/o village Nepura, P.S. Manpur, District Nalanda. 10.Subodh Kumar son of Ramdeo Paswan, R/o village Nepura, P.S.Deepnagar, District Nalanda. 11.Sujata Kumari daughter of Satyendra Singh, R/o village Beroti P.S. Manpur District Nalanda..Respondents 3. 02.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State in respect of limitation petition (I.A.No.2963) and also on merits. 2 Considering the explanation for delay of 14 days, the limitation petition is allowed. On merits, this Court finds that the dispute raised on behalf of petitioner-appellants relates to alleged irregularity committed in the year 2003, when the selection was being made for engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra which was then contractual appointment for 11 months. Those whose service was satisfactory were granted further renewal. The appointees of 2003 did not face any challenge for their appointment for a long number of years and when the post of Shiksha Mitra was converted to that of Block teacher/Panchayat teacher as per the Rules of 2006 and the holders of such posts became Panchayat teacher/block teachers, a large number of such disputes arose at the instance of persons who subsequently developed interest for the post. The petitioner/appellants moved this Court through a writ petition filed in the year 2009 seeking a direction that the Collector of Nalanda District should dispose of their petitions. That innocuous prayer was considered and the writ petition was favorably disposed of. Under the earlier Rules, the authority to look into illegality or irregularity of appointment to the post of Block teachers/Panchayat teachers vested in the Block Development Officer but now that power vests in an Appellate tribunal for hearing such disputes as per amendment of 2008. So clearly the Collector of a district has no role or jurisdiction under the scheme of the Rules to look into the alleged irregularity in the selection process of 2003. Hence, the Collector sought opinion of the Appellate authority. Opinion by the Appellate authority was against the case of the appellants but the Collector took a 3 different view. The challenge to the order of the Appellate authority before the single judge has failed because according to the writ court, the petitioners were not at all in picture after 2003 when the contractual appointment was renewed which would amount to fresh appointment on contractual basis. The writ petition was dismissed because the writ court felt that no relief could be given to the writ petitioners, even if there is some irregularity found in the appointment of concerned Shiksha Mitra made in the year 2003. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even if the appellants/writ-petitioners are not able to get the post of Shiksha Mitra or the converted post of Block teacher/Panchayat teacher, such posts if becoming vacant, would be available to all aspirants. Considering that cause of action arose in the year 2003 and for the first time the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 when the post of Shiksha Mitra was converted into that of Panchayat teacher/Block teacher, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)