IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6026 of 2003 Sri VISHWANATH SHARMA @ VISHWANATH THAKUR (Barbar) aged about 43 years, son of late Dhuran sharma, resident of Manpur, Varun Tola, Buniyadganj, P.S. Mofasil, District Gaya. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through Health Secretary, Patna. 2.Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Director of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Civil Surgeon Cum District Medical Officer, Gaya. 5.Incharge Medical Officer, Town Block Gaya. 6.District Magistrict, Gaya. ----------- 4 28/6/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Originally in this writ petition the following prayer was made:- “That this is an application for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents for inclusion of petitioner’s name in the panel to be prepared by the District Magistrate, for appointment to the post of Health Worker in the light of order passed by the Hon’ble Court on 30.1.96 in C.W.J.C. No.6562 of 1999.” Later on, in course of pendency of this writ petition I.A.No.4615 of 2005 was filed wherein in paragraph-1 thereof following prayer was made:- “That this is an amendment application in C.W.J.C. No.6026 of 2003 necessitated by the urgency of determining the real question in controversy that is- seeking quashing of the IMPUGNED ORDER No.1914 dated 16.6.94 contained in Annexure-1 passed by Respondent No.4 and grant relief to your petitioner on the basis of different approach to the same facts by allowing salary Arrears with all the consequential benefits as Interim relief to your petitioner as the wrong is apparent on the face of the record and your petitioner has suffered immensely for no fault of his on.” 2 This Court noticing that the real issue involved for the petitioner was a cause of action of the year 1994 had framed following question by order dated 20.5.2010:- “The relief which is being sought to be added in the writ application through I.A. No.4615 of 2005 is stale. The cause of action as stated in the I.A. application was available to the petitioner when the writ application was filed in 2002. However, the said prayer was not made in the main writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays some time to produce case laws to show that even the stale claims raised through an I.A. application can be entertained in the writ application. Put up after Summer Vacation for admission within first five cases.” Today learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a list of cases, but has not come out with any of them and therefore this Court would only find that the case law which has been cited in the list of cases will have no application to the facts of this case. In any event, cause of action of the year 1994 cannot be agitated in the year 2005 by filing an amendment petition. That being so, this application is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)