ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Having regard to nature of the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Sheikhpura dated 12.12.2012 this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal had definitely not disposed of the complaint of the petitioner in accordance with law. While it may be true that the petitioner had filed her complaint belatedly by sending her representation to the Tribunal on 7.12.2012 with regard to a cause of action of the year 2010 or even earlier but then the Tribunal has to decide the complaint strictly in accordance with the provisions made in Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awan Sewa Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 which reads as follows:– “18. vihy-&bl fu;ekoyh ds vèkhu fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krks± ls lEcfUèkr vihy lquus dh 'kfDr ftyk Lrj ij ljdkj }kjk xfBr ,d ;k ,d ls vfèkd lnL;ksa dh izkfèkdkj dks gksxhA ekuo lalkèku fodkl foHkkx ds }kjk izkfèkdkj dh LFkkiuk ,oa lsok 'krks± dk fuèkkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA vihyh; izkfèkdkj dk xBu lsok fuo`r fcgkj U;kf;d lsok] Hkkjrh; iz'kklfud lsok] fcgkj iz'kklfud lsok] fcgkj f'k{kk lsok ds inkfèkdkjh;kas ,oa vko';drkuqlkj f'k{kkfonksa ls fd;k tk;sxkA** 3. This provision was made by the amendment in the Rules in the year 2009 vide notification contained in Memo No. 1056 dated 3.7.2009. In that view of the matter, when the statute itself does not prescribe any period of limitation anyone can be non-suited on the ground of delay/ limitation in filing the complaint. 4. The Tribunal, however, has relied on the earlier notification No. 3716 dated 23.10.2008 while passing of the order on 12.12.2012 which, as noted above, has already been substituted by the notification No. 1056 dated 3.7.2009. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court would find the impugned order to be wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as the same has been passed dismissing the complaint of the petitioner only on the ground of delay and is, accordingly, quashed. 6. Before parting with it is, however, made clear that in an appropriate case delay may be considered as a factor for non-suiting the complainant not on account of period of limitation but on account of 3rd party right created and continuation of an arrangement for a long period. 6. Before parting with it is, however, made clear that in an appropriate case delay may be considered as a factor for non-suiting the complainant not on account of period of limitation but on account of 3rd party right created and continuation of an arrangement for a long period. For example if a person has been appointed in the year 2006 on the post of Panchayat/Prakhand teacher and the aggrieved person against such appointment moves in the year 2013 i.e. after seven years of such appointment. In that case as the rights and equities have been created in favour of the appointed person and he has continued in service for a period of seven years, his such appointment cannot be disturbed unless the same is vitiated by fraud deciphered or discovered by an aggrieved person. Therefore, the issue of delay in such cases will have to be considered separately even when the statute does not prescribe for period of limitation in filing of the compliant. 7. That being so, this application is allowed and the Tribunal is hereby directed to dispose of the complaint of the petitioner afresh on merits.