IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11433 of 2008 Mahendra Paswan, S/o Sri Chaudhary Paswan, resident of Village Basgarha, P.S. Ismalpur, District Bhagalpur…………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. 6. The District Magistrate-cum-the Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Bhagalpur. 7. The Area Education Officer, Bhagalpur…………………………………………………………….………Respondents ---------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sandip Singh, A.C. to G.P. 9 2 27.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Teacher in any primary school of Bhagalpur district pursuant to the recommendation of his name by the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, “BPSC”) made in 1999 on the basis of selection made pursuant to Advertisement No.24/96. It is submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the P.T. Examination and was 2 successful and hence, through letter no.356 dated 18.05.1999 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, he was directed to appear on 06.06.1999 for verification of his certificates. It is his case that he appeared and got his certificates verified. However, no appointment letter was issued to him. Hence, he has moved this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order dated 04.04.2008 passed by this Court in CWJC No.13277 of 2005 and submits that in similar circumstances, petitioner of that case had moved this Court and this Court allowed his application noticing the fact that no interview was required to be held as per advertisement. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner had not appeared for verification of his certificates. Hence, his case was not considered by the respondents for appointment. In support of this stand, relevant pages of the register maintained by 3 the respondents have been produced in which against the name of petitioner he has been marked as absent. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that candidates, who had appeared for verification of the certificates, had signed the register and whose signatures are there on the sheets whereas against the name of petitioner, a question mark has been put and it has been written as “Unu”. He further submits that the petitioner has moved this Court after inordinate delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that if this Court finds that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has a genuine case, this Court should not deny relief to him in exercise of its discretionary powers. After going through the materials on record and after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court because of the reason that there is absolutely no explanation in the writ 4 application for the delay of 9 years in approaching this Court. As per his own case, petitioner was asked to appear for verification of the certificates on 06.06.1999 on which date, as per his case, he appeared. In spite of the same, he sat over the matter for almost 9 years and has moved this Court only in 2008. Even if the order of this Court, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, may be of a candidate for appointment under the same process, but the same is distinguishable. First the Court has held that there was no requirement for interview but it has not been held that there was no requirement even for verification of the certificates. It is quite obvious that before any appointment letter is issued, copies of the certificates submitted by an applicant selected for appointment need verification from their originals. Therefore, verification of the certificates is necessary and integral part of selection process which is done in a routine manner before final order of appointment is issued. The records show that petitioner had 5 not appeared for verification of his certificates. No material is available on record to show that this fact, pleaded by the respondents, was wrong. Secondly, the said order of this Court is also distinguishable from the case of the petitioner from another angle. The order of this Court shows that the case of the said petitioner was under active consideration at one stage or the other and the matter was being delayed by the respondents. Hence, in the facts and circumstances brought on record of that case, the writ application of the said petitioner was allowed. In the present case, there is absolutely no material available on record to explain the delay of 9 years. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)