IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8617 of 1995 RAJNI KANT, S/o Sri Bishwanath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Kaliasthan, P.S. Danapur Cantt, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar Public Service Commission, through it’s Chairman, Baily Road, Patna 3. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Baily Road, Patna 4. Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Seretariate, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 10. 28.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application to the following effect “(i) To appoint the petitioner to a Graduate level post in accordance with his qualification having a higher pay scale to that what he is getting at present from the date of his joining to the post of Progressive Assistant & other consequential reliefs which he is entitled to under law. (ii) To pay to the petitioner the arrears of salary including interest thereupon which he would be entitled to from the date of his joining the post of Progressive Assistant in the Animal Husbandry Department.” 2 must be rejected only on the ground that even if the petitioner had appeared in a competitive test conducted by then Bihar Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board on the basis of advertisement No.5 of 1985 for Graduate Level post, the moment the petitioner had accepted the post of Progressive Assistant allegedly a post of Intermediate level on 15.10.1987 on the basis of result of same examination and recommendation of the same Board, he had acquiesced his right to claim any post of a graduate level. This Court would have still entertained the claim of the petitioner, had the petitioner immediately on being offered the post of Progressive Assistant could have moved this Court by assailing the appointment of a person having obtained lesser marks than him and yet recommended for his appointment on a graduate level post in preference to him but today after almost 24 years of the advertisement and 22 years of continuation of service of the petitioner on the post of Progressive Assistant an Intermediate level posts it would find 3 absolutely difficult to now allow the aforementioned prayer which in effect will lead to displacement of at least one person from the graduate level post appointed on the basis of recommendation of the Board. Specially when the petitioner has not impleaded any such person as a party to this writ who according to him had secured lower marks them him in the same competitive examination and yet was appointed on a graduate level post in preference to him who could be removed for making the place for the petitioner. In such a situation, the only submission of the counsel for the petitioner that at least the petitioner should have been given same option which was given to other candidates for opting a graduate level post as was done in the year 1989, vide Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ application, has to be only noted for its being rejected. In the year 1989 the petitioner had already become two years old Progressive Assistant and therefore, if such an offer was required to be given he had to again move the authority and this Court in the year 1989 or 4 1990. This writ petition was filed in the year 1995 and therefore, now when for giving the said relief to the petitioner someone will have to be displaced this Court well refrain from doing such exercise because the transaction of appointment on graduate level posts on the basis of an advertisement and selection process undergone in the 1985-86 has been completed way back some twenty years back. This Court, therefore, would find that the petitioner having slept over his right for a considerable period of time, today after a space of more than two decades cannot now be permitted to materially affect someone else his right and that too without impleading such person as a party to the writ application. The prayer of the petitioner that in future his case should be considered for a graduate level post in isolation by giving him preference to the candidates from open market would not only be against the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but even otherwise is of a highly speculative nature because this Court is not 5 aware as to for which of the post the petitioner would be eligible for being considered in future. It, however, goes without saying that if similarly situated person like the petitioner would be given any consideration by the Government, the petitioner’s case must also receive sympathetic consideration taking into account that at least at one point of time the petitioner had an indefeasible right of being recommended and appointed on a graduate level post, though such right was substantially given up by him on account of his own negligent conduct. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/