IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11072 of 2006 UMESH SINGH, Son of Ram Pujan Singh, Resident of Village Jagdishpur Pathak, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur at Arrah. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah. 3. The Block Development Officer, Piro, District Bhojpur. 4. Surendra Singh @ Jharkhandi Singh, son of Jaipati Singh, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Rajaitha, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur. 5. Vijay Singh, son of late Shiva Nath Singh, Resident of village Jagdishpur Pathak, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur at Arrah. ----------- 2 24.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)Issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the Primary school, Puraini Kala in the Piro Panchayat of Bhojpur District. (ii)Discontinue/terminate/cancel the appointment of respondent no.5 illegally appointed on the said post of Shiksha Mitra.” So far the first prayer of the petitioner as quoted above is concerned, this Court would find that any direction cannot be issued by this Court for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Siksha Mitra after 1.7.2006 as the said post of Siksha Mitra stands abolished. This application therefore filed on 7.9.2006 as with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Siksha 2 Mitra must be deemed to have become infructuous. The next prayer of the petitioner with regard to termination/ cancellation of appointment of respondent no.5, in fact, has been answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit, copy whereof was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 21.2.2007, wherein it has been stated that the allegation made against appointment of respondent no.5 in the police case was found to be false and the police, in fact, had submitted final form with a recommendation to initiate a proceedings under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been stated that the allegation of the petitioner that his application for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was illegally rejected by the Mukhiya has been found to be incorrect and in fact the same was rejected only because of absence of the signature of the petitioner on the application filed by him. Thus, when the petitioner himself was edged out on account of his own fault in the process of selection, he will have no right to challenge the appointment of respondent no.5 specially when in the enquiry held the allegations against respondent no.5 were also found to be false. Additionally, this Court must also indicate that the selection of respondent no.5 was made in the year 2003 and the respondent no.5 having completed three continued 11 months extension on the post of Siksha Mitra and has already now become Panchayat Shikshak in view of provisions made in 2006 Rules. 3 Therefore, this belated writ application almost after three years of cause of action must be also held to be not maintainable on account of unexplained delay and clear laches on the part of the petitioner. Thus, for all the reasons recorded above, this application must be held to be wholly without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)