IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14169 of 2005 MD.ALAMGIR ANSARI, SON OF LATE DR. MD. MANIRUDDIN ANSARI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NOONGOLA, P.O. AND P.S. HAJIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 7. THE HEAD MASTER, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. ----------- 3 11.2.2011 The petitioner is working in the Town Middle School in the district of Vaishali. He had filed a writ application before this Court for payment of certain portion of his salary. This Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of the salary for the reasons contained in Annexure-2 (CWJC No. 2662 of 1978). The petitioner had to again come to this Court as he was not being permitted to join the school by the Principal on the ground that he had remained absent for a short period of time. The petitioner had filed a representation before the District 2 Superintendent of Education and as such this Court directed that the District Superintendent of Education, Hajipur should dispose of the representation. Apparently the representation was not disposed of. It is, therefore, not clear to this Court as to whether the petitioner actually joined the school thereafter or not. The present writ application has been filed as there was a notice issued on 11.2.2004 in a daily Hindi newspaper asking all the teachers of the school in question to appear before the District Superintendent of Education, Hajipur, along with their certificates of educational qualification, appointment letters etc. to test the validity of their appointments. It has been submitted that this advertisement was issued on a complaint lodged by some persons. It is expected that the petitioner must have appeared before the Committee. As far as the claim of the petitioner that he has not been paid his salary and has not been allowed to join the duty, this Court cannot pass any positive order, as if the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that 3 despite the orders of the Court, the District Superintendent of Education had not disposed of the representation of the petitioner, he ought to have moved this Court at the earliest, but certainly not after 20 years to seek a direction for payment of salary. In the result, this writ application is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)