IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6705 of 1995 DR.RAJIV KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rameshwar Nath Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Nath Rai, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Sanat Kr. Mishra, J.C. to G.A. 2 For the Respondent :- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Nishant Choudhary Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh 14 28.8.2008 The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Assistant Professor contained in annexure-1 dated 8.2.1990. The grounds for challenge are that it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not duly qualified to be appointed on the said post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner’s case is that he applied in the year 1987 when there was a notification for filling up the vacancies of the post of Assistant Professor in Gastoentrology. As sated the respondent no. 4 was appointed on 8.1.1990 and the writ application was filed on 30.8.1995 after a delay of almost five years without any explanation for the said delay. The claim of the petitioner that he had sought appointment on the basis of the advertisement of 1987 has been rebutted by the State respondent at 2 paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit wherein they have stated that the petitioner was not an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor Gastoentrology in 1987. It has further been stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualifications as he did not hold the degree of D.M. at the relevant time i.e. on the cut off date which is 31.1.1988. Even according to the petitioner’s own pleadings it has been stated that the petitioner acquired the qualification of D.M. in the year 1990 which would prima facie disentitle him for the purpose of consideration to the post of Assistant Professor against the advertisement issued in 1987. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 on the other hand submits that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor was challenged in this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1022 of 1990 which was heard with C.W.J.C. No. 6945 of 1991, the case is reported in 2000(3) P.L.J.R. 618 and the particulars with respect to the petitioner’s case is discussed at paragraph 77 of the said judgment. The 3 appointment of respondent no. 4 was upheld by this Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been appointed/promoted to the post of Associate Professor and recently to the post of Professor. Considering the facts of the case the claims and counter claims of the parties, I find that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed not only on the ground of delay but also on merits, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not an applicant against the 1987 advertisement and as such he cannot challenge the appointments made against the said advertisement. This writ application is dismissed without costs. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)