Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1774 (PAT)

Kamini Kumari v. State of Bihar

2011-08-23

body2011
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura in Appeal No. 77 of 2008-09 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner along with others was an applicant in the year 2006 for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Primary Schools. However, she was ultimately not selected. Admittedly the petitioner did not file any application/complaint before the then competent authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, that is Block Development Officer. Instead the petitioner filed several representations before the District Magistrate, who ordered to enquire into the matter. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura on 30.5.2009. Subsequently the petitioner filed application before the Block Development Officer on 20.11.2009. 4. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has accepted the contention of the respondent authorities of the Gram Panchayat after looking into the records of' the proceedings that the petitioner did not appear for counseling on a consideration that a total number of 159 candidates had participated in the counseling but in the counseling register the name of the petitioner did not appear and also all the five members of the Selection Committee had signed on the same. It has thus disbelieved the allegation of the petitioner that the counseling register had been changed. 5. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the appeal was barred by time. 6. So far as the second issue is concerned, this Court does not find any period which has been prescribed under Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules and thus there is no question of an appeal being barred by time. However, since the matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Teacher involving third party rights it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the delay in filing of the application/appeal for rejecting the said application. It is evident that the petitioner took three years time in approaching the Appellate Authority. Admittedly she never approached Block Development Officer, the then competent authority at the relevant time and did so only on 20.11.2009 on that date the BDO had no jurisdiction in the matter. It is evident that the petitioner took three years time in approaching the Appellate Authority. Admittedly she never approached Block Development Officer, the then competent authority at the relevant time and did so only on 20.11.2009 on that date the BDO had no jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, the case of the petitioner was fit to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches alone. 7. This Court further finds no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority after looking into the relevant records as this Court does not sit in appeal over the decisions of the subordinate quasi judicial authorities and may interfere only if it can be shown that the findings and order of the Appellate Authority are perverse in the sense that they are based on no material on record or they are contrary to the materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show how the order of the Appellate Authority is perverse. 8. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.