IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.673 of 2005 SAGAR MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 15.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Government Advocate No1. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent- authorities to revise the year of matric trained scale with effect from 6.11.1970 in place of 4.4.1979. The petitioner was appointed on 6.11.1970 on the vacant post of Middle Trained Assistant Teacher. Thereafter by office order contained in memo no. 1443 dated 12.11.1982 the petitioner was granted matric trained pay scale with effect from the date of issuance of the order relying upon the letter dated 4.4.1979 issued by the Director (Primary Education), Bihar in which the higher secondary examination failed candidates were treated as equivalent to matric. The claim of the petitioner is that on the date of appointment he was a trained teacher and he had passed 10th Special Examination and thus in view of the circular dated 22.9.1966 issued by the Additional Director of Public Education-cum-Deputy Secretary his qualification was considered as equivalent to matriculation. It is further submitted that by another letter dated 24.11.1966 issued by the Deputy Director of Education (Basic and Primary), Bihar it is stated that those Harijan candidates who had passed 10th Special Examination and appointed thereafter, should be given the untrained 2 matric scale. The claim of the petitioner is that he had filed several representations after his appointment in the Middle Trained Scale in order to be granted the matric trained scale and pursuant to the same it was finally ordered by letter dated 12.11.1982 of the District Superintendent of Education, Saran that he would be given matric trained scale from the date of the order. It is urged that the petitioner had again represented the matter before the authorities but since the same was not considered he has ultimately filed the writ application in the year 2005. The stand of the State-respondents is that the writ application itself is not maintainable since the petitioner has raised a stale claim after so many years. It is contended that the petitioner has never challenged his order of appointment dated 6.11.1970 and thus he cannot be permitted to challenge the same after so many years. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a Middle trained Assistant Teacher’s post and thus cannot claim the matric trained pay scale from the very beginning. It is further contended by learned counsel for the State that subsequently the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Matric Trained Scale and even thereafter he had never challenged the order dated 12.11.1982 at any stage and at the fag end of his service when he was due for retirement he has filed the present writ application. It is thus urged by learned counsel for the State that the writ application at such a belated stage ought not to be entertained apart from the fact that there is no merit in the same. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this 3 case, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention of learned counsel for the State. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the initial order of appointment dated 6.11.1970 or even by the subsequent order dated 12.11.1982 granting him the matric trained scale with immediate effect and not from the date of appointment and if as he claims, he had represented the matter before the authorities but the same were not considered for so many years then the proper course for him ought to have been to have approached this Court within a year or two from the non-consideration of the representation and not to keep waiting until his retirement approached for coming to this Court. At this belated stage it is not possible to go into the various contentions raised as to whether the petitioner was granted the scale as a matter of promotion or not as has been raised in the counter affidavit of the State because the matter itself is quite stale. Thus, this Court does not consider it a fit case for interference. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)