IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14804 of 2009 1. Shashi Bhushan Jha S/O Sri Baidyanath Jha Vill & P.O. Ulao, P.S. Muffasil, Begusarai, Distt. Begusarai, At Present Posted As Employment Officer, Sub. Regional Employment Exchange, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Distt. East Singhbhum At Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary Personnel And Administrative Reforms Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary Home (Police) Deptt., Bihar, Patna 5. The Secretary Home (Special) Deptt., Bihar, Patna 6. The Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna 7. The Deputy Secretary Personnel And Administrative Reforms Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Prafulla Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devenda Kumar Munna, AC to AAG 4 For BPSC : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate -------- 6. 06.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as „the Commission‟). The petitioner was a candidate under the 36th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Commission in 1989. Pursuant to the publication of the merit list in 1991, he was allocated the Bihar Employment Service as a general category candidate. Aggrieved by the application of a subsequent reservation policy of 1990 in contra distinction to the earlier reservation policy of 1978 as existing on the date of advertisement, contending that the allocation of service in the merit list should have been made under the latter policy and not the former, he along with others came to this Court unsuccessfully in CWJC No. 10892 of 1994. In LPA No. 692 of 1999 this Court directed the State 2 Government to “either” create a shadow post to accommodate the appellant against the higher post or the higher pay scale or to take decision to push down the candidates who got appointment on basis of the new reservation policy of 1990. It is therefore apparent that this Court did not give specific directions to the respondents to act in a particular specified manner only but gave them more than one option. As the result of the implementation of the order of the Court those who had benefited by the merit panel prepared under the reservation policy of 1990 but now appeared adversely affected came to this Court in CWJC No. 6024 of 2004 and 6027 of 2004. A Bench of this Court held that they had been adversely affected in violation of the principles of natural justice, and setting aside the order granted liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In LPA Nos. 879 and 880 of 2007 arising there from the Court noticed the stand of the State that a high level meeting is in process for appropriate cabinet approval after which necessary action shall be taken with regard to the eight officers who were likely to lose their job in the process and the cadre of 27 officers which stood to change. The respondents after carrying out this exercise issued fresh notification dated 11.2.2009, in respect of three out of the aforesaid eight persons allocating them the Bihar Administrative Service. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same contending that in terms of the direction in LPA No. 692 of 1999 the petitioner was required to be accommodated in the Bihar Administrative Service by creation of a shadow post and those three persons whose name did not figure in the revised merit list cannot be brought in to his prejudice. Counsel for the State also referred to the order in LPA No. 692 of 1999 and urged that there was no specific mandatory direction for 3 creation of a shadow post only for proper consideration of the petitioner. The respondents have reworked the merit position of the petitioner as per the 1978 reservation policy. The petitioner has still been found entitled to the Bihar Employment Service and cannot be allocated the Bihar Administrative Service. Aggrieved by such consideration he came to this Court in MJC No. 1938 of 2000 disposed on 5.5.2004 declining interference. The petitioner thereafter has had more than reasonable time to re-agitate the matter. He has chosen to institute the present writ application as late as 26.10.2009 after more than five and half years without any explanation for the delay. The allocation of three persons to the Bihar Administrative Service by the order dated 11.2.2009 is not his detriment in any manner much less is he affected by the change of cadre of 27 persons. The eight new appointments have been made in the Bihar Employment Service itself and which does not affect the petitioner. Delay in service matters has always been considered vital. It has a cascading effect on many issues including seniority disturbing the peace in service of others. The inevitable result is affecting the morale of others in service, frittering away of precious time and energy in litigation which could have been put to better utilization. The Court is not persuaded to pass orders of a nature which may only encourage such litigation. In (1998) 2 SCC 523 (B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjaj) it has been held :-: “7……. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches because the grievance was made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not to have been reopened after the 4 lapse of such a long period. ……..It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.” The exercise by the respondents in terms of the Letters Patent Court, whether it be the petitioner or those affected thereby ultimately fructified when the respondents revised the merit list and which came to be considered by the Court on 5.5.2004. The grievance of the petitioner got crystallized on that date. If he did not challenge it within reasonable time, there can be no escape from the conclusion that either he woke up late or that he was not satisfied himself that his claim merited adjudication. The petitioner cannot be permitted to claim that he became wiser at a later stage and without any explanation for this inordinate delay of five and half years woke up at his leisure to unsettle what had become settled. The cause of action that accrued to the petitioner on 5.5.2004 is independent and distinct from the order dated 11.2.2009 presently impugned and is no justification or explanation for the delay. Once he accepted his allocation of service to the Bihar Employment Service without demur in 2004 the issue stands concluded in so far as he is concerned. As observed earlier, there was no limited direction in LPA No. 692 of 1998 for creation of a shadow post only. Options were given to the respondents. If the petitioner be of the opinion that the order dated 11.2.2009 prejudices him, it was for him to demonstrate the prejudice in what manner the three persons had been placed in a higher position than him for service allocation simultaneously pushing him down for 5 accommodating them. No such material has been placed by the petitioner. The Court is not persuaded to start a roving enquiry. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)