IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4361 of 2011 1. SUBODH KUMAR son of Sri Rampati Pandit, resident of Raja Bunglow, near Jawahar Talkies, P.O.-Jhumri Tilaiya, Distt.-Koderma-825409, Jharkhand. 2. Md. Safi Akhtar son of late Md. Mojibur Rahman, resident of Said Manzil, vill. & P.O.-Khiriyawan, P.S.-Madanpur, Distt.-Aurangabad. 3. Kanhaiya Prasad son of Sri Ram Girdhari Ram, resident of vill.& P.O.- Jamuaon, Via-Jitora, District-Bhojpur. 4. Gupteshwar Prasad son of Sri Sahbu Bedia, resident of vill. & P.O.-Ordana, P.S. Peterwar, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. 5. Jivan Kumar Bhagat son of late Mahali Bhagat, resident of vill.-Madai, P.O.- Bayasi, P.S.-Chanhi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Amitabh Singh son of Sri Kamal Narayan Singh, resident of Flat no.59, Block no.2, Sector no.6, M.I.G., Housing Colony, Bahadurpur, Patna. -------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001. --------------------------------------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners. : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. For B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Pandey, Advocate --------------- 2. 9.3.2011 The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to their non-appointment in the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) pursuant to their selection made by the Bihar Public Service Commission against the advertisement made in the year 1996. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that even though the selection process was made but petitioners have not been granted selection and still their file is moving from department to department. However, though petitioners’ appointment has been 2 denied due to non-selection to the respective posts pursuant to the advertisement of the year 1996, but this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable because of abnormal delay. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.)