IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.188 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 5294 of 2006 ==================================================== Santosh Kumar son of Vishwanath Singh, resident of Village- Jahangirpur, P.O. Bidupur, P.S. Bidupur, District-Vaishali. …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. 2. The District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali, Hajipur. 3. The Welfare Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Welfare Officer, Vaishali. …. …. Respondents/REspondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to AAG-13 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 3.2.2011. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th November 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5294 of 2006, the writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant claims to be a handicapped person. Pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2003, the appellant had applied for appointment in Class IV service under the District and Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. The interview was held on 3rd June 2005. The result was declared on 30th June 2005. Feeling aggrieved by his non-selection, the petitioner complained - 2 - to the District and Sessions Judge for not making reservation for the handicapped persons and claimed that he be appointed in the category of handicapped person. As his request was not granted, he filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 5294 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge rejected the writ petition as the claim is grossly belated. Therefore, the present appeal. We have examined the record. The appellant has not produced the advertisement to establish that no reservation was made for handicapped person; nor has he produced any material to establish that he is a handicapped person and that he had applied as such. In absence of the relevant materials before us; almost five years after the selection process was complete no interference is warranted. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)