IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10486 of 2009 DHARMENDRA KUMAR, son of Sri Shiv Bachan Singh, resident of Village Jamalpur, Police Station- Koelwar, District- Bhojpur. . . . . . . Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. Inspector General of Police (Administration), Bihar, Patna. 4. Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga 5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Purnea Range, Purnea 6. Additional Inspector General of Police (Rail), Bihar, Patna. 7. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail) Bihar, Patna. 8. Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj, Bihar. 9. Superintendent of Police (Rail) Katihar, Bihar. 10. District Magistrate, Katihar, Bihar. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 25.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the District order no.814/02 bearing Memo no. 679 dated 11.06.2002 whereby he has been dismissed from the post of constable by the Superintendent of Police, Railways Katihar on the ground that his appointment as constable was without undergoing any selection process pursuant to any advertisement as he was appointed constable under order dated 26.03.1997 for exemplary chivalry in protecting the villagers when they were attacked by the dacoits. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that termination order passed in the case of a constable Kamal Chandra Sah, who was also appointed for exemplary chivalry in protecting the villagers when they were attacked by the dacoits was set aside by this court under orders dated 27.07.2006 and for the reasons indicated in the said order the termination order passed in the case of petitioner be also set aside. I regret not to accept the submission. Termination order was - 2 - passed on 11.06.2002 and petitioner has filed this writ application on 21.08.2009. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner is barred by laches of over seven years which is sought to be explained by stating that petitioner has moved the authorities of the Department by way of representation which is kept pending. Pendency of the representation cannot be a ground to entertain the petition after more than seven years. In this connection reference be made to the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1414 in which a constable who was dismissed from service applied for setting aside the dismissal order as also for reinstatement on the ground that similarly situate constable was allowed reinstatement earlier but the court rejected the plea observing that challenge against the termination order made after a long gap without any cogent explanation for the inordinate delay could not be allowed merely because others similarly dismissed constable has been reinstated. Further more appointment having been made against the post of constable without any advertisement as also without undergoing any selection process, the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 11.06.2002 is fit to be affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. A.F.R. Uday/ (V. N. Sinha, J.)