IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.227 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 2006/2010 ============================================ RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH - Appellant (s) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondent(s) ============================================ Appearance: For the Appellant: Mr. RAJENDRA NARAIN Mr. RAJ NARAYAN MISHRA ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 07.02.2011 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 2nd December 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 2006 of 2010. The appellant-writ petitioner had, pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 1991, applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher in ‘Civics & Hindi’ in Government High School as a disabled person. He was called for interview on 24th August 1996. On 11th February 1997 the Bihar Secondary School Service Board recommended his name for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the High School in the category of disabled persons. Nevertheless, the appellant and such other disabled persons were not given appointment. Feeling aggrieved; they approached this Court in 2 C.W.J.C. No. 12104 of 2002. The said petition was allowed on 17th February 2003. The State Government was directed to give effect to the recommendation made by the Bihar Secondary School Service Board. The said order was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 461 of 2003 on 27th June 2003. The petition for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court was rejected. Consequent to the said order of the Supreme Court, after a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, the appellant came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher under disabled category on 3rd July 2006. Nearly four years after his appointment on 3rd July 2006, the appellant filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 2006 of 2010 for restoration of seniority amongst the Assistant teachers who were appointed on 22nd September 1997. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition as barred by the principle of res judicata. Therefore, the present Appeal. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Narain extensively. It is not in dispute that though the appellant succeeded before the learned Single Judge and before the Letters Patent Bench, neither of the Courts granted relief of restoration of seniority according to his placement in the merit list. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the claim for restoration of the seniority made by the appellant in 3 the second round of litigation is barred by the principle of res judicata. Besides, the petition filed four years after his appointment also deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. For the reasons aforesaid, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)