IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4878 of 2009 Hafiz Md. Sanaullah, s/o Md. Noor Ullah, r/o village- Mahua Tola Sohsarai, P.S. Sohsarai, Distt.- Naland. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar at Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 20.4.2009 Heard Amresh Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. N.K. Sinha, Additional Advocate General NO.10 for respondent no.1, and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal for respondent no.2. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no.2 to declare him passed in the Primary Teachers Training examination held by it in January 1988. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had appeared at the Primary Teachers Training Examination held in January, 1988. The results were published but the petitioner’s name was absent. He, therefore, preferred C.W.J.C. No.12746 of 2000 (Hafiz Md. Sanaullah Vs. The State of Bihar and another), which was disposed of by order dated 21.08.2008 (Annexure-4), whereby respondent no.2 was 2 directed to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. Consequently respondent no.2 has disposed of the petitioner’s representation by the order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure-6), the petitioner’s representation has been rejected, and impugned herein. 3. It appears that the examination had taken place way back in January, 1988, and the petitioner preferred his first writ petition in this Court in 2000, after a lapse of 12 years. The same remained pending in this Court for eight years. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. Furthermore, the petitioner’s representation dated 15.9.2008 has been rejected by the impugned order on two grounds. Most of the papers as per the policy decision have been destroyed. The limited papers available with them show that the petitioner had not appeared in the theory paper, as a result of which, he was declared failed. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3