IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9498 of 2006 CHANDRA SHEKHAR KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJEDNRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- PURENIA, P.S.- BIHTA, DISTRICT- PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR. 4. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, ADDIITIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, CHAK MEHSI, KALYANPUR, SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 30.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Upon his own showing, petitioner was appointed on Class-III post by memo dated 23.11.1989 (Annexure-2) and was terminated from service by memo dated 1.6.1993 (Annexure-5). The petitioner claims to have filed a representation on 25.3.2006 and thereafter this writ application on 4.8.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the Division Bench dated 26.6.2006 passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases which was passed in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench contained in paragraph 44 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, - 2 - reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363. The observations of the Constitution Bench contained in paragraph 44 applies to an incumbent who has continued in service for more than 10 years. An enquiry was required to be held in respect of such candidates for their regularization in case their appointment was found irregular (not illegal). Admitted fact is that petitioner’s services were terminated in less than five years of his alleged appointment. Even after his termination in 1993 petitioner has sat over the matter and has only filed the alleged representation in 2006 and this writ application thereafter. Petitioner also relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 841 wherein it has been held that permanent employees can not be terminated without complying with the requirements of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Apparently none of the two grounds, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is available to the petitioner. The writ application also suffers from unexplained enormous delay and laches. Petitioner having accepted his termination for more than 13 years can not be allowed to challenge the same in - 3 - this Court now. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ (J.N. Singh, J.)