IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.329 of 2009 Santoshi Kumari w/o Raj Kr. Yadav, r/o village & P.O. Madhurapur, Via – Kalyanpur Chowk, P.S. Kalyanpur, Samastipur …………. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary –cum- Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The D.M., Samastipur 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur 5. The Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur Block, Samastipur 6. The Panchayat Sachiv, Madhurapurtanra Gram Panchayat, Kalyanpur Block, Samastipur 7. The Mukhiya, Madhurapurtanra Gram Panchayat, Kalyanpur Block, Samastipur …. Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. S.A. Alam, SC – IV --- 2 1-4-2009 Petitioner - appellant herein passed Madhyama Examination from Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya, Singhiyahi, Ladoora, Samastipur in the year 2002. Pursuant to an advertisement in the year 2003 for appointment of Shiksha Mitra in Madhurapurtanra Gram Panchayat in Lalyanpur Block of Samstipur district, petitioner had applied. Petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that mark-sheet of Madhyama and School Leaving Certificate appeared to be - 2 - doubtful. Petitioner approached this court in the year 2008 stating that rejection of his application for appointment was not correct. The learned single judge dismissed the application observing that the matter of appointment relates to the year 2003 and subsequently the Rules of appointment have been changed a lot. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for delay in approaching this court was because of several representations filed in the year 2003 & 2004 kept pending with the authority concerned. If the representations filed in the year 2003 or 2004 was not being disposed of, the petitioner should have immediately approached this court. Merely filing representation after representation and not approaching this court will not be a ground to condone the delay of about four years. We are of the view that the learned single judge has rightly rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court. In intra- court appeal, we are unable to interfere with the matter. - 3 - In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Neyaz/- (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)