IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18179 of 2010 1. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI HARIHAR SINGH R/O VILL.- JALAHA, P.O.- MANGALAPUR, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN---------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM PRINCIPLE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR AT PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 5. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARIARIA, TOLA RAJPUR P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 9. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARIARIA, TOLA RAJPUR, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 10. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE HARI NANDAN SINGH R/O VILL.- JALAHA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI----------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 19.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-1 dated 22.6.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran, Motihari in Case No. 477 of 2009 is under challenge in the present writ application. In short the grievance of the petitioner relates to his non-appointment or non-selection as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. According to him respondent No.10 came to be appointed at his cost and for extraneous reasons despite the fact that he has more marks. Still his claim has been ignored. All these aspects have been dealt with in the order impugned by the member of appellate authority. In addition to that there is a categorical finding that the petitioner did not move any - 2 - authority for many a years to assert his claim against discrimination. Obviously the tribunal was moved as an after thought when Panchayat Shiksha Mitras become permanent appointees under the State as Panchayat Shikshak with much better service condition. When pointed question was put to the counsel to explain as to the inaction or failure on his part to assert his right, right from the year 2003 to 2006 or till he chose to file a writ in the year 2009 and moved the tribunal in the year 2010, the answers are not convincing and therefore the Court does not find any infirmity in the findings given by the appellate authority that claim of the petitioner is a stale one and barred. The stand of the private respondent No.10 is reflected in the counter affidavit filed today. He too has brought evidence to show that the petitioner had not appeared in the counselling and he did not raise any objection before the authority in so many years, whereas respondent No. 10 has already been working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thereafter as teacher for more than half a decade. This writ is an ill advised kind of challenge made in the above facts and circumstances and the law being what it is, the challenge to the findings of appellate authority is unwarranted as it does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no merit in the writ application and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)