IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1570 of 2009 RAKESH PRASAD VERMA, SON OF LATE KANHAIYA PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHAPATPURA, P.S.-MAIRWA, DISTRICT-SIWAN, AT PRESENT, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-FRIENDS COLONY, ROAD NO.2, P.S. RAJEEV NAGAR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………………………..PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE DIRECTOR(INDIGENOUS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION, FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HOMOEOPATH), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT INDIGENOUS MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT COMBINED HOSPITAL, SIWAN. 4. THE SECTION OFFICER, INDIGENOUS MEDICAL SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE OFFICE ASSISTANT (DEALING ASSISTANT CONCERNED), INDIGENOUS MEDICAL SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE DESPATCHER (BIPATRA LIPIC) OF DIRECTOR (INDIGENOUS) PATNA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. AT PRESENT POSTED AT RANCHI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR. ………………………RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Shree Niwas Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, AC to AAG-III. -------- 2 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. RAVI RANJAN. O R D E R ( 22 .03.2010) As per Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J: The writ petitioner-appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11605 of 2009, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the records of this case. 3. According to the writ petitioner-appellant, the District Indigenous Medical Officer, District Combined Hospital, Siwan, had appointed him as Homeopathic Compounder on 4.5.1984, however, on 16.6.1984, the joining of the petitioner and others were stopped till further orders. One of such person, namely, Smt. Kabita Srivastava, challenged the aforesaid order by approaching this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4432 of 1984. It is submitted that in view of order dated 17.11.1989 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, appointment letter was issued to the aforesaid Smt. Kabita Srivastava on 5.8.1991 and she, accordingly, joined. Thereafter, the petitioner and some 3 others, also approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.6282 of 1991 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.7.1993 to consider the case of the petitioner in similar manner of Kabita Srivastava in accordance with law and in terms of the direction as contained in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the judgment passed in her case bearing C.W.J.C. No.4432 of 1984. However, it was contended that though, thereafter, the petitioner was issued appointment letter vide Memo No.496 dated 5.7.1993, however, the same was not handed over to the petitioner. The said appointment letter has been brought on record as Annexure-‘II’ to the writ petiton. It was further contended that despite petitioner’s endeavor to join his service, he was not allowed to join by the Department which compelled him to again approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.3311 of 2000, which was again disposed of on 6.1.2006 directing the Respondent No.1, the Director (Indigenous), Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna, to examine the claim of the petitioner and if his appointment letter was found to be valid then he should direct for appointment of the petitioner with retrospective effect and also to pay him the remuneration admissible in 4 law from the date of his appointment. Pursuant to that, the petitioner represented on18.1.2006, 3.3.2006 and 4.4.2006, however, according to the writ petitioner-appellant, a cryptic order dated 29.7.2006 was passed. The petitioner filed M.J.C. No.3028 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.8.2009 stating therein that since a reasoned order has been passed by the concerned authority, the same could not be considered under the contempt jurisdiction of this Court and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid order, it would be appropriate for him to challenge the same in a properly constituted proceedings. Then the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.11605 of 2009 challenging the order dated 29.7.2006 passed by the authority concerned as contained in Annexure-‘VI’ to the writ petition. However, the aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 6.11.2009 which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner- appellant submitted that the report of the concerned Despatch Clerk as contained in Annexure-‘III’ had not been properly considered by the authorities concerned, wherein he had accepted the factum of issuance of 5 appointment letter dated 5.7.1993. As a result, the authorities had passed cryptic order. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge had also committed serious error while passing the impugned order by not appreciating the aforesaid letter and earlier appointment letter which had been brought on record. The learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner-appellant’s petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches and he remained silent for about seven years, completely over looking the fact that within that period two M.J.C. applications bearing M.J.C. No.1902 of 1995 (disposed of on 24.6.1996) and M.J.C. No.1064 of 1995 (disposed of on 24.6.1996) were also filed by the petitioner and orders were passed therein. 5. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that in compliance of the earlier order dated 6.1.2006, a reasoned order had been passed by the concerned authority, as contained in Annexure-‘6’ and the factum of issuance of appointment letter in the year 1993 in favour of the petitioner could not be established due to the reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner also did not join the post thereafter and was also not paid any salary and suddenly in 6 the year 2000 he had filed a writ petition for allowing him to join the service in lieu of appointment letter issued in the year 1993. It was also submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed his petition on the grounds of delay and laches. Further contention was that though the petitioner had stated in paragraph-27 to the writ petition that M.J.C. No.1902 of 1993 was filed by one Shambu Saran Ray alongwith this petitioner and was disposed of on 1.12.1994 and similarly, another M.J.C. No.1064 of 1995 was also filed by him alongwith aforesaid Shambu Saran Ray, it is unclear as to under what facts and circumstances and for what relief such cases were filed and what was the orders passed therein. Neither any copy of such petitions nor any order had been annexed by the writ petitioner- appellant. In that view of the matter, it was contended that there was nothing on record to co-relate the petitioner’s case alongwith M.J.C. applications. 6. We also do not find any force in the submissions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner- appellant. 7. From perusal of the Annexure-‘5’, it is apparent that the competent authority after looking into all 7 relevant records had found that the factum of issuance of any appointment letter in favour of the petitioner could not be established. The petitioner neither joined nor worked on the post. Since the competent authority found that the factum of issuance of any appointment letter was not established, there is no question for allowing the petitioner to join on the concerned post. That apart, it is also surprising that if the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1993, what prevented him from appearing before the authority concerned for the purpose of joining the service and if the same was refused then what prevented him from agitating this matter for about seven years. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges out that the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant undoubtedly suffers from the vice of delay and laches. In this regard, it would be apt to refer the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Maharashtra Vs. Digambar 1995 Supreme Court Cases, 1991 wherein, it has been observed that such relief cannot be granted to a person if his claim suffers from the vice of delay and laches. Apart from that, his claim itself has been found to be without any basis even on its merit by the competent authority. 8 8. In the above view of the matter, this being intra-court appeal, we do not find any reason for interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Patna High Court. The 22nd of March, 2010. Pradeep Srivastava/N.A.F.R.