IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8218 of 2002 RAJESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 11.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 4706 of 2001 with a claim to be considered for appointment on the post of Chaukidar based on descent. This Court found no merit in his claim. It is a matter of common knowledge that when the petitioner is unable to persuade the Court to grant relief, instead of obtaining an order of dismissal barring all doors, the petitioner prefers to withdraw his writ application to pursue the matter before the authority. When a Court passes order of this nature, it only grants a grace. The original refusal of the Court holding that the petitioner had no claim on merits does not get softened or watered down. If the petitioner files a representation thereafter and the authority rejects his representation, it is difficult to hold that he has fresh cause of action now, when this Court after hearing him on merits did not find any substance in the matter. This Court has no hesitation in holding that after the writ petition was declined interference on merits, the petitioner cannot be permitted to make out a fresh cause of action based on such representation filed by him in a grace granted by the Court. This Court can do no better than to quote the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2 (2008) 10 SCC 115 (C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & another) at paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 & 14. “8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he maybe taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying to such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition before the tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The tribunal/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. 9. The Courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any “decision” on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of 3 such a direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored. 10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 4 11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action.” “14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for ”consideration”. If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing “consideration” of such claims.” The present writ application aptly falls under the representation syndrome noticed by the Supreme Court. This Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)