IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8645 of 2006 KRISHNADEO SINGH, S/O LATE CHANDRIKA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHEORA, P.S. RISHIAP (KUTUMBA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ..............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE,(BIKASH BHAWAN)PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, GAYA. 5.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, AURANGABAD. .................RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 27.06.2011 Having heard Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State and taking into account that the following relief actually sought by the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this is an application through which the petitioner crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to direct and command the Respondents authorities to consider and count the service of the petitioner from 10th January 1972 to 29th August 1972 as an Assistant teacher and from 30th August 1972 to till the date of retirement i.e. 30th April 2006 as Headmaster and pay pension and retirement benefits.” is in effect to indirectly assail the order dated 10.12.1987, by which the respondent Director of Secondary Education in compliance of 2 the order of this Court dated 03.09.1986, in C.W.J.C No. 3184 of 1984 had disposed of the representation of the petitioner recognizing his service as Headmaster w.e.f. 19.04.1980 Would hold this writ application to be not only raising a stale issue but in fact also suffering from the vice of unexplained delay and laches. As a matter of fact it also becomes clear that the relief now sought in the writ application seeking a direction for considering the case of the petitioner by counting the services of the petitioner from 10.01.1972 to 29.08.1972 as an Assistant Teacher as also from 30.08.1972 till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.04.2006, is wholly belated and in fact also cannot be allowed unless the order passed by the Authority as contained in Annexure-6 dated 01.011.1987 is modified held to be bad and modified which had proceeded on the basis of the petitioner's school becoming a recognized school only w.e.f. 19.04.1980, after receiving the approval for establishment only w.e.f. 20.11.1972. Thus there would be no question of recognizing the service of the petitioner prior to 20.11.1972 specially when his claim for payment of salary prior to 02.10.1980 was also rejected by the Director of 3 Secondary Education in his aforesaid order dated 01.11.1987. Such order having been allowed to attain finality by the petitioner till his retirement cannot be now reopened in an indirect manner specially when the liability of the Government for the school of the petitioner has commenced from the date of its take over on 02.10.1980. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)