JUDGEMENT 1. On special mention, CWJC No. 9656 of 2010 (Pramod Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Others) is also taken up as both these writ petition assail the same order of the Tribunal. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The petitioner of the first case is aggrieved by order dated 7.5.2010 passed in Appeal No. 783 of 2009 by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Supaul. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner-Pramod Kumar in the year, 2009. Petitioner Pramod Kumar alleges, as per the appellate order, that he was duly selected as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. While he was working, as such, his selection was terminated and in his place, petitioner Shobha Kant Suman appointed in the year, 2006 as Shiksha Mitra. Then having been found working when the 2006 Rules came into being, he was absorbed as permanent Primary Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner Pramod Kumar did not then challenge either his removal or petitioners Shobha Kant Sumans selection. Towards the end of the year 2008, in terms of Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules, the Tribunal was constituted and immediately thereafter, petitioner Pramod Kumar, in the year 2009, filed the instant appeal before it. The Tribunal, considering the fact that petitioner Shobha Kant Suman had iesser marks than the petitioner Pramod Kumar, has now set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner Shobha Kant Suman but at the same time granted no relief to the petitioner Pramod Kumar stating that in view of a Circular issued by the Department of Human Resources, the vacancy should not be filled now. 4. In my view, the contention of the petitioner Shobha Kant Suman is correct that the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the complaint much less set aside his appointment in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Others, 2009(2) PLJR 929 . It may be noted that the petitioner Shobha Kant Suman was initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year, 2006 which was purely contractual and for a period of nine months but all Shiksha Mitras, found working in the year 2006, were then absorbed as permanent Panchayat Teachers under the 2006 Rules. Under both, there were provisions for objecting to the appointment within 30 days. Petitioner Pramod Kumar made no such complaint. His complaint came three years later in 2009. Under both, there were provisions for objecting to the appointment within 30 days. Petitioner Pramod Kumar made no such complaint. His complaint came three years later in 2009. As such, in view of the decision noticed above, the same would not have been entertained. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The writ application of Shobha Kant Suman is allowed. 6. Now coming to the writ application as filed by Pramod Kumar against the order of the Tribunal, which is impugned in the first case itself. So far as writ application of Pramod Kumar is concerned, he has also impugned the order of the Tribunal in so far as the Tribunal has not directed his reinstatement. 7. For the reasons already given above in the case of petitioner Shobha Kant Suman, the application of petitioner Pramod Kumar to the Tribunal itself being misconceived and not entertainable, the writ petition of petitioner Pramod Kumar consequently fails and is dismissed.