IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.553 of 2006 RANJAN KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Hans Lal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.S. Mishra, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate-V ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad ------------ Dated, the 29th August, 2008. Appellant before us is an unsuccessful petitioner. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 24th February, 2004 praying therein that termination order issued by the Area Education Officer, Nawada on 3rd April, 1996 be quashed and set aside. According to the petitioner, he came to be appointed to a permanent post of Clerk vide order dated 30th December, 1995. He was paid salary up to January, 1997. Thereafter the salary was stopped without any rhyme or reason. He made representations to the authorities for release of his salaries and in the year 2004, he learnt of the order dated 3rd April, 1996, whereby he was terminated from service. He then approached the Court. 3. That the writ petition suffers from delay and laches is apparent from the facts that have been stated by the - 2 - petitioner in the writ petition. It is inconceivable that the petitioner was not aware of the order of termination dated 3rd April, 1996. At least he ought to have been immediately after February, 1997, when admittedly payment of salary to him was stopped. His explanation that after his last representation dated 12th July, 2003, when the appropriate authority sought for a report, then he came to know of the order of termination dated 3rd April, 1996 hardly deserves acceptance. 4. Besides that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches, the facts averred in the writ petition are eloquent enough to suggest that his appointment is founded on highly unreliable document. In the synopsis of the appeal, the appellant has stated that on 14th February, 1997/31st October, 1998 the appointment having been found forged and illegal, the enquiry was set-up by the C.B.I. and vide Memo. No. 680 dated 29th March, 1996, District Education Officer, cancelled the appointment of the appellant and on 3rd April, 1996 vide memo No.410 the Area Education Officer, Nawada issued a letter canceling the appointment of the appellant and ordered the appellant to deposit the salary which he had withdrawn. With all these facts, which are set up by the appellant in the synopsis of appeal, his challenge to the order of termination can hardly be accepted. As a matter of fact, the whole case set-up in the writ petition is founded on maneuvering and misrepresentation. 5. Dismissal of the writ petition, in the facts and circumstances by the Single Judge, cannot be said to suffer from any - 3 - legal flaw, justifying interference by us. 6. L.P.A. is dismissed with no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J Pawan/-