IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7825 of 2003 1. RAMCHANDRA SINGH, son of Late Mr. Bhaso Mahto, resident of village- + P O Amarpur, P.S. Medini Chowki District- Lakhisarai. 2. Mahendra Prasad Mehta, son of Mr. Hulash Mahto, resident of village + P O Manikpur, P S. Surajgraha, District- Lakhisarai. 3. Padmaraj Rajak, son of Late Mr. Basudeo Rajak, resident of village- Chand Tola Deograha P.O.- Amarpur, P.S. Medini Chowki, District- Lakhisarai. … Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 2. Director, Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 3. Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. Additional Secretary Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Munger. … Respondents. ----------- 4. 30.08.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the following prayer of the petitioner: “1. That, this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus for direction directing the respondents to promote the petitioners on the basis of time- bound promotion computed from the date of appointment of the petitioners.” seeking to raise a wholly belated cause of action, at least of 17 years back, cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction as the unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioners by itself would be sufficient to dismiss this writ application. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioners’ 2 appointment was made in the year 1975 in between 12.11.1975 to 13.11.1975 and according to their own claim, they became entitled for grant of time bound promotion on completion of 10 years service in the month of November 1985, but this writ application claiming time bound promotion has been filed on 7.8.2003. This Court also must take into account that the time bound promotion scheme of the Government introduced by the Government resolution dated 31.12.1981 has already been scraped and abolished w.e.f. 1.6.1996 and therefore this Court would find it difficult to now examine the admissibility of the claim of the petitioners for such time bound promotion. Additionally, this Court would find that the reliance placed by the petitioners on a Division Bench order of this Court dated 29.10.1991 in CWJC No. 5251 of 1990 is also misplaced inasmuch as the same would also not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners of aforesaid case infact had already been granted time bound promotion and had moved this Court only when their such time bound promotion was sought to be interfered and/or cancelled with retrospective effect. It was in view of an altogether different circumstances, that 3 their cases were remitted back by this Court to University for holding a fresh enquiry. Admittedly, same is not the case of the petitioners in this writ application inasmuch as they were never granted time bound promotion at any point of time. That apart there is also no averment in the writ petition that any person junior to the petitioners, appointed by the District Superintendent of Education, was given such time bound promotion while denying the same benefit to the petitioners. Thus, the plea of discrimination also is not established which could have entitled the petitioners to claim promotion even after a lapse of 18 years of the cause of action. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had to bear the burnt in denial of their time bound promotion on account of a faulty decision taken by the competent authority by giving the benefit of time bound promotion to such teachers whose appointment was made by the Managing Committee of the District Board at the cost of the persons like the petitioners who were appointed by the District Superintendent of Education again amounts to examining 4 an issue of the year 1985 or even earlier. The moment question of entitlement of the petitioners would become relevant consideration, the unexplained delay of 18 years on their part in moving this Court would be sufficient to put a full stop to their such belated claim inasmuch the petitioners had slept over their right for such a long period before moving this Court for the wholly stale and belated relief sought in this writ application. That being so, this writ application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)