IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9810 of 2004 Sri Subash Ghosh, son of late Haricharan Ghosh, resident of Akharaghat, Ghat Road, P.S. Saraiyaganj, District- Muzaffarpur ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its Chairman, Corporation Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. 2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office J.C. Road, Patna. 3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Muzaffarpur --- Respondents. ----------- 4. 19.12.2008 Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan for the petitioner, and Mr. Namrata Mishra for the respondents. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent Bank to give permanent appointment in the respondent Bank. The petitioner claims to have worked as Farrash water boy messenger, a Class IV employee, in the respondent Bank on daily wages. The number of days he so worked is indicated in Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- Sl.No. Calender Year No.of days worked Position in which engaged ----- ---------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------ 1. 1987 130 Farrash, water boy Messenger 2. 1988 297 3. 1989 268 4. 1990 265 5. 1991 295 6. 1992 364 7. 1993 333 8. 1994 292 There is no indication in the writ petition that he worked after 1994. It further appears that there was an agreement between 2 the respondent Bank and its employees union for regularization of such employees. The Bank had consequently issued its circular dated 6.4.1991(Annexure-A), inviting applications from such persons. The petitioner did not submit his application as a result of which he was not considered for regularization. The last date for submission of such application was 30.5.1991, which was extended up-to 20.9.1991. The process for regularization was completed on 31.3.1997. It is thus evident that the petitioner deprived himself of the opportunity of consideration in view of his failure to submit his application for which he is entirely to be blamed. Secondly, this writ petition was lodged in this Court on 20.8.2004. It suffers from un- explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. It is a frivolous writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)