IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.627 of 2011 Md.Alamgir Ansari son of late Dr. Md. Maniruddin Ansari, resident of Mohalla- Noongala, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali…………………………………………Petitioner ….Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Hajipur, District –Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The Managing Committee, Town Middle School, Hajipur District-Vaishali at Hajipur, through its Secretary. 6. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Town Middle School, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 7. The Head Master, Town Middle School, Hajipur District –Vaishali at Hajipur……………………………….Respondent…………Respondents. ------------- 2. 01.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Writ Court dated 11.2.2011 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing C.W.J.C. No. 14169 of 2005 has been dismissed after noticing relevant facts which show that there was no good explanation for the delay and latches on the part of the appellant who claimed salary for April, 1983 without disclosing the fact whether he has worked thereafter or not. In the year 1983, he had preferred a writ petition which was disposed of 19.8.1983 with a direction for disposal of representation within three months. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the said representation was never disposed of and the appellant kept on waiting for the same and pursuant to a notice not related to the controversy, he filed another representation in the year 2004 which is also pending. In 2005, the appellant preferred the related writ petition in question and admittedly he has crossed the age of superannuation. 2 The appellant was clearly having recurring cause of action since April, 1983, on account of not being permitted to join after a period of absence. Non-disposal of representation within three months of order dated 19.8.1983 also gave a cause of action but he has opted to sit tight on the plea that representation is pending. Writ jurisdiction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. We are not persuaded to take a different view than that of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. It is however, made clear that if so advised, the appellant may seek appropriate remedy through the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. Mkc/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)