IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4331 of 2010 MOJIBUR RAHMAN S/O LATE REYAZET HUSSAIN R/O VILL. & P.O.- SIKKAT, P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR, EX-CLERK OF ZILA PARISHAD, KATIHAR, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ZILA PARISHAD, KATIHAR THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PARISHAD, KATIHAR ----------- 05. 21.05.2010 Counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Zila Parishad, Katihar. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.516 dated 1.2.1996, Annexure-7 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Katihar, whereunder he was dismissed from service after conclusion of the departmental proceeding in the light of the findings of the enquiry officer contained in the enquiry report. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Manjoor Alam another employee of Zila Parishad, whose case is similar to that of petitioner was also dismissed by the Zila Parishad under order bearing Memo No.515 dated 1.2.1996, Annexure-6 and there is no distinction between the case of the petitioner and aforesaid Manjoor Alam. It is submitted that Manjoor Alam challenged the order dated 1.2.1996 before the Director, who set aside the order of dismissal of Manjoor Alam under order dated 14.8.1999, Annexure-1 but Manjoor Alam was not reinstated and he filed C.W.J.C. No.12782 of 2004 which was allowed under orders dated 23.5.2006, Annexure-2, yet, Manjoor Alam was not reinstated. Zila Parishad challenged the order of the Single Judge of this Court dated 23.5.2006 by filing L.P.A. No.435 of 2006 which - 2 - was dismissed under orders dated 20.8.2008, Annexure-3 directing the Zila Parishad to reinstate Manjoor Alam forthwith. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his case is similar to that of Manjoor Alam, as such, in his case also similar order as was passed in the case of Manjoor Alam be passed. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Kumkum Singh Versus The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2009(4) PLJR 1019 and submitted that termination order issued in the case of petitioner and Manjoor Alam being same, the termination order in the case of Manjoor Alam having been set aside and Manjoor Alam reinstated similar relief should also be allowed to the petitioner. 6. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission in view of the fact that dismissal order of the petitioner is dated 1.2.1996 and petitioner kept on assailing the said order before the Director who never set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and the matter remained pending before the authorities. Petitioner has approached this Court after passage of more than 14 years, the case of the petitioner cannot be allowed as he did not question the validity of the dismissal order before this Court within reasonable time and thereby he has disabled this Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article- 226 of the Constitution. The writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)