IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5235 of 2003 GOPAL KRISHNA MISHRA, S/O LATE MAHABIR MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-BHRAMARPUR, P.S.-THANA BIHPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SPECIAL DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 07.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of teacher in a Government Basic School on the basis of panel prepared pursuant to an advertisement in which his name was included. As per the pleadings of the petitioner, advertisement was published in the daily newspaper on 7.8.1988. Petitioner applied in response to the advertisement and he appeared for interview before the interview board on 27.4.1989. Petitioner was a candidate of general category. After the interview, panel was prepared in which 129 candidates were included in the panel for general category. In the said panel the name of petitioner figured at serial 2 no. 125. Panel was approved and thereafter appointment letters were issued. Although the vacancies were 129 in general category but appointment letters were issued to only top 116 candidates and the remaining candidates of the panel of the general category were left out. The pleading of the petitioner is that last batch of candidates was appointed by order dated 1.10.1991. It is contended that when petitioner came to know that he had been left out, he filed a representation before the respondent Director praying therein to consider his case for appointment as a teacher in a Government Basic School. A typed copy of representation is annexed as Annexure-2. From Annexure-2, it does not appear that on which date the same was filed before respondent Director. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Anneuxres-4, 5, 6 and 7 to show that on the representation of the petitioner, some enquiry was made and it was found that against available vacancies of 129, appointment of only 116 candidates was not proper on the part of the then District Education Officer and Regional Deputy Director of Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 submits that the contents of the representation show that petitioner filed a representation some time in 1997 or 1998, and petitioner’s case remained under consideration before the respondent till 2003. Hence, the writ application was filed, without any delay, for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment against the remaining vacancies. From his own showing, it appears that advertisement was published in 1988 and candidates of the last batch were appointed from the panel on 1.10.1991. The representation does not show the date on which the same was filed. Hence, the documents, Annexure-4 to 8 which are of 2002 and 2003, raise the presumption that the petitioner had filed his representation some time in 2002 only. Even if the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, there is a delay of about 7 years in raising his grievances by the petitioner before the authorities. It is a matter of appointment against advertisement and from the panel. Any grievance in respect of non-consideration, on the basis of name included in the panel, raised for the first time after 7 years is a stale 4 claim. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the claim of the petitioner in view of enormous delay caused in the matter due to his laches. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that many matters were pending in this Court and in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the State Government to take up appointment of trained teachers in different schools in the State. It may be so. Hence, in case respondents take up the appointment of qualified teachers in different schools under a policy decision and in the light of recent judgments of this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court and petitioner’s case comes within the zone of consideration on the basis of the same, this order will not come in the way of respondents in considering the case of the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)