A decade-delayed challenge to a completed teacher selection is barred by delay and acquiescence.

The appellant was selected and appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in Gram Panchayat Raj Bahuarwa in 2007.

Respondent No. 13, who had also applied in the 2006 selection process, was not selected and challenged the appointments in 2018.

The District Level Authority dismissed his appeal as time-barred, and the State Appellate Authority upheld that decision.

Respondent No. 13 then filed a writ petition; the Single Judge interfered with the State Appellate Authority’s order and directed the District Programme Officer to obtain service particulars and take corrective measures.

The appellant, a respondent in the writ petition, challenged that order, alleging, among other things, that it was made without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside or modifying the State Appellate Authority’s order and directing further action despite the delay in challenging the 2006 selection.

2. Whether the State Appellate Authority was justified in upholding dismissal of the challenge as time-barred.

Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 empowered the Block Development Officer to hear complaints relating to Panchayat teacher employment; the 2008 amendment replaced that authority with a District Level Authority empowered to hear and decide such appeals.

The Court applied the principles that a challenge to a selection must be brought before the competent authority within a reasonable time, and that delay, acquiescence and the creation of settled rights may preclude belated interference.

It also held that a writ court must address the reasoning and conclusions of the order under challenge when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court found that respondent No. 13 knew of his non-selection in the 2006 process and could have approached the competent authority, particularly after the 2008 amendment, but did not file an appeal before that authority until 2018.

Complaints to other authorities did not amount to an appeal under the applicable rules.

By then, the selection and appointments had stood for about 12 years, and subsequent selection processes had also taken place.

The Single Judge’s order did not address the District and State Appellate Authorities’ detailed findings on delay and instead directed corrective action without adequately considering the order under review.

The Court therefore concluded that the Single Judge’s interference was erroneous.

It set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 27 January 2025 in C.W.J.C. No. 3650 of 2020 and disposed of the Letters Patent Appeal.