IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5435 of 2011 Ghuran Jha son of Late Tej Narayan Jha, R/o village- Jalsain, P.S.Rudrapur, District- Madhubani. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar,Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board ( Senior Secondary), Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination, Board, Senior Secondary, Budh Marg, Patna-1. --Respondents. ----------- 06. 26.07.2011 Heard Mr. Birmani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.12 for the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner is an employee of the Bihar School Examination Board (Senior Secondary) (for short ‘the Board’). He is questioning the sustainability of order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent Board whereby he was placed under order of suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the memo of charge was framed and served on him on 17.05.2007. In this connection, he relies on Annexure-4 to the Interlocutory Application no. 2558 of 2011 filed in the present proceeding. Relying on ratio laid down by this Court in the State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Gyan Kumar Ram since reported in 2009(4) PLJR 272 (Full Bench), it is contended that on expiry of period of 07 months from the date of issuance of Annexure-2, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service since before expiry of the said period of 07 months he had already approached the authority by filing 2 application/representation as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2and 3. In paragraph no.5 it has been stated as under:- 5. That the statement made in para 1 of the writ petition is by way of prayer by which the petitioner has challenged the memo no. BIEC/142/Estt/06 dated 5.5.06 by which the petitioner has been suspended with immediate effect. However a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under subrule 4(23) of Bihar CCA Rules 2005, and after completion of all process, charges has been proved, as result major punishment has been awarded against the petitioner vide Memo no. B.S.E.B. (SS)/45/Estab./11 dated 13.4.11 by which compulsory retirement has been awarded against the petitioner.” Petitioner may be right in his submission that he was entitlted to be reinstated after expiry of 07 months but then the petitioner was required to knock the doors of the Court immediately thereafter if the relief was not given to him. Facts as stand today is that the petitioner did not approach the Court for all the 05 years and faced the proceeding in which ultimately he has been afflicted with punishment of compulsory retirement, which is not under challenge. This Court, in view of the aforesaid facts, is not inclined to invoke its extra ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )