IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.629 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIAHR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel-XIX ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 20th August, 2008. The unsuccessful petitioner is in appeal. 2. He prayed for the following relief/s in the writ petition: - “(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents specially respondent No. 7 and 8 to produce the merit list of second Primary Teacher( Main) Examination, 1996 vide Advertisement No. 60/96 held on 13.3.1999 whereby the petitioner’s name could not recommended by the Bihar Public Service Commission despite very well performance in examination but the merit list of the said examination could not deliver to the petitioner even a long litigation under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to include the petitioner’s name in the selection list of second Primary Teacher (Main) Examination, 1996 after production of its merit list whereby the petitioner’s name could not be recommended despite very well performance in examination. 2 (iii) For issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 7.1.2008 (contained in Memo No.11 dated 17.1.2008) passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in case No. 2893/07-08 whereby the learned court of Commissioner has rejected the petitioner’s claim to deliver a copy of the merit list of Second Primary Teacher (Main) Examination, 1996 held on 13.3.1999 despite the fact that respondent No.9 admitted that the documents sought for by the petitioner can be deliver to him. (iv) For issuance of any other relief/reliefs as your lordships may deem fit and proper and for which the petitioner may entitle.” 3. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Bihar Public Service Commission as per the established process does not maintain papers after a time of three years. 4. That pursuant to the Second Primary Teacher (Main) Examination, 1996, the selection was held on 13th March, 1999 and that Bihar Public Service Commission published the final result on 3rd June, 1999 is not in dispute. According to the petitioner on 5th June, 1999, he made an application before the Commission for retotalling of marks of three subjects. He is said to have deposited the requisite fee prescribed for the same. A reminder is said to have been sent by him to the Commission on 17th June, 2000 in continuation of the application dated 5th June, 1999. However, he went in slumber and it appears from the facts narrated in the writ petition that he made an 3 application to the Chief Minister on 9th February, 2007 i.e. almost after seven years for redressal of his grievance. When nothing was done there, he filed the writ petition in 2008. 5. In our view, if within reasonable time, the application made by the petitioner before the Commission on 5th June, 1999 for re-totalling of his marks in three subjects was not considered, he ought to have pursued the legal remedy available to him in law and not waited for eight years. In a fact-situation like this, where the Commission has weeded out the papers as they do not retain the same beyond three years, the delay becomes fatal. 6. The dismissal of writ petition, in the circumstances, by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. 7. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-