IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.413 of 2003 Sheo Shankar Ram, Son of late Bujha Ram, Resident of Village Dudhar, P.O. Sisrit, Police Station Nokha, District Rohtas at present residing at M-Patel Colony (Gaurakshni) Police Station Sasaram, District Rohtas. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Sasaram, District Rohtas. 4. District Education Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas. 5. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Sheopur, Chitauli, P.O. Muradabad, Anchal Sasaram, District Rohtas. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, in the nature of Mandamus direction to the Respondents to give I.A. Trained Scale since 1978 and B.A. Trained Scale since 1981 to the Petitioner and further direction to Respondents to make payment arrears amount of difference of pay Scale to the Petitioner in terms of promotion.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the aforementioned prayer, would submit that not only the petitioner had been fully qualified and eligible for earning promotion but in fact several other juniors 2 to the petitioner were given such promotion ignoring the case of the petitioner. In this context, he has invited attention of this Court towards Annexure-7, a representation, filed by the petitioner on 12.9.2002. He would therefore submit that at least this Court should direct the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In this case, counsel for the State has relied on the counter affidavit a copy whereof was already served on the counsel for the petitioner on 24.9.2007. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have fully explained the whole case of the petitioner in paragraph nos. 6, 7 & 8, which reads as follows:- “6. That in the aforesaid context it is stated that the case of petitioner was considered and examined in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee dated 12.1.2004 and it was found that the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of First time bound promotion in his service period in the Matric trained scale. 7. That, as regard promotion in senior 3 selection grade is concerned in that respect it is stated that 20% of the teachers working in Matric trained scale are only entitled for the promotion in senior selection grade, and it is further stated that no teacher in the Rohtas District has been granted the benefit of senior selection grade in absence of gradation list, and since the matter of petitioner relates to promotion from the Matric trained scale to B.A. trained scale, therefore the District Education Establishment Committee decided to reject the application of the petitioner for such promotion. 8. That, as per decision of the District Education, Establishment Committee, this answering respondent vide memo no. 344, dated 14.02.2004 has communicated to the petitioner that his claim for promotion has been rejected.” There being no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, this Court, for the time being, will have to accept the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents to be uncontroverted. Once this position becomes clear that the petitioner’s case was duly considered and he was granted the admissible promotion in the Matric Trained Scale of Pay 4 and could not be given any further promotion on the ground of either want of vacancy or no juniors having been given such benefit of promotion, this Court would not find it difficult to issue a direction for grant of further promotion to the petitioner. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the juniors to the petitioner were given such promotion has to be only noted for its being rejected. No such person has been named in the writ petition who is said to be junior to the petitioner and was given promotion in preference to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, had also referred to Annexure-5, the list of Harizan Teachers drawing Matric Trained from drawing inference as with regard to they being junior to the petitioner and having been given such promotion. In absence of averments in the main portion of the writ application, no such inference can be drawn from reading of any annexure. Additionally, this Court would find that the cause of action pressed in this writ 5 application relates to the year 1978 and 1981 and the same for the first time was sought to be raised before this Court by filing this writ application on 8.1.2003 i.e. after almost 22-25 years. Such stale claim therefore can not be even otherwise entertained by this Court. The writ application infact suffers from the vice of unexplained delay and laches as well and is fit to be rejected on this ground alone. Thus for the reasons mentioned above, this Court would find no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)