IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2591 of 2010 1. GEETA ROY W/O DINESH RAI @ DINESH KUMAR R/O VILL.- PATEDHA BUJURG, P.O.- PATEDHA JAI RAM, P.S.- VAISHALI (O.P. BELSAR), DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S., SOCIAL AND WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATEDHI BELSAR, VAISHALI 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. THE MUKHIYA, CHAK GULAMUDDIN GRAM PANCHAYAT AT VAISHALI 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHAK GULAMUDDIN GRAM PANCHAYAT, VAISHALI 9. LALITA KUMARI W/O GAJENDRA RAI R/O VILL.- PATEDHA BUJURG, P.O.- PATEDHA JAI RAM, P.S.- VAISHALI (O.P. BELSAR), DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 02. 24.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On the own showing of the petitioner, the cause of action for denial of appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika originates on 2.3.2007, for which she has represented on 5.4.2007. The writ petition has been filed in February, 2010. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay except the solitary representation filed in the year, 2007. The petitioner herself acknowledges that respondent no.9 came to be appointed on the post. The passage of time attributed to inaction on part of the petitioner has created third party rights favour of respondent no.9. In the facts of the case, when the petitioner 2 is unable to demonstrate that she pursued any legal remedy, the long passage of time, the creation of third party rights, this Court in the entirely is satisfied that the claim in the writ petition is stale and merits no interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The application stands dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)