IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20633 of 2010 1. Nutan Kumari D/O Sri Kaushal Kishore Singh R/O Vill. & P.O.- Narma, P.S.-Hathauri, Distt.-Munaffarpur----------------------petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissiner and Secratary Primary & Adult Education, Bihar, Patna 2. Member, District Teacher's Appellate Tribunal Muzaffarpur 3. District Magistrate Muzaffarpur 4. District Education Superintendent Muzaffarpur 5. Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Deputy Superintendent, Bihar Education Project Rambagh, Muzaffarpur 6. Block Development Extension Officer Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 7. Block Development Officer Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 8. Secratary, Gram Panchayat Narma Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Narma Bochahan, Muzaffarpur 10. Smt. Sangita Kumari W/O Sri Pankaj Kumar R/O Vill.-Narma, P.S.-Hathauri, Dist.-Muzaffarpur------------------------------respondents ----------- 2. 18.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment as Shiksha Mitra but after the selection process the respondent No.10 Sangita Kumari was appointed by letter dated 26.5.2005. The petitioner apparently not satisfied by the said appointment did not take any steps until one and a half years when on 15.11.2006 she filed a representation before the Block Development Officer, Bochahan, Muzaffarpur. When no action was taken by the B.D.O. she 2 filed another representation and thereafter approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.8945 of 2009, which by order dated 6.8.2009 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority which had by then become the statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 24.4.2010 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that she had for the first time approached the Block Development Officer after one and a half years, whereas in terms of the Government Resolution Nos. 1548 dated 11.8.2004 and 1748 dated 2.9.2005 complaint was to be filed within 30 days of selection/appointment of Shiksha Mitra before the District Magistrate, and further the petitioner having approached the Appellate Authority after so much delay her appeal was time barred and not fit to be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had higher marks than the respondent No.10 and thus she was entitled to be appointed in place of the respondent No.10. He also submits that the petitioner had 3 approached the Block Development Officer who at the relevant time was the competent authority under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules before the same was amended in 2008. It is thus submitted that the authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on merit. This Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and it is broadly in agreement with the position adopted by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. As the Resolutions of the Government had fixed a time limit of 30 days for filing complaint before the District Magistrate and the petitioner did not act in terms of the said Resolutions her right to be appointed stood defeated. Approaching the B.D.O. after one and a half years could be of no avail to the petitioner as in the meantime the respondent No.10 had her contract renewed after 11 months and had become a Panchayat Teacher by virtue of 2006 Rules. In such matters when third party rights are involved even if no period of limitation is prescribed it is expected of the aggrieved persons to act with sufficient dispatch. After so much of delay it would not be appropriate to reopen the appointment of respondent No.10. 4 In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/