- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State, Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 9.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2010 in Appeal No. 695 of 2009 passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal at Supau (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). It allows the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 9 and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with a consequential direction to appoint Respondent No. 9.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection process commenced in 2006 and the final merit list drawn up in 2007. Pursuant to Respondent No. 9 declining the offer for appointment the petitioner was appointed and joined on 16.3.2007. The law applicable governing the appointment Was the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, .2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Under Rule 18 the aggrieved was required to file a complaint before the Block Development Officer, within a period of thirty days. No such complaint was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 9 after the appointment of the petitioner much less within the time prescribed. If that remedy was not availed, Respondent No. 9 could not evade answerability for the same by subsequently invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal directly in 2009. Reliance was placed on (Gangesh Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar,2011 4 BBCJ 2179) and (Kamini Kumari V/s. State of Bihar,2011 4 BBCJ 360).;