IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1675 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar Mandal, Son of Shri Kant Lal Mandal, resident of Village- Meharpur, Post- Kadrachak, P.S. Shambhuganj, District- Banka --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Patna High Court 3. The Prakhand Wikas Padadhikari, Shambhuganj 4. The Block Education Extension Supervisor, Shambhuganj Block, District- Banka 5. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, jhakhara, Post- Jhakhara, Prakhand- Shambhuganj, District- Banka 6. The Secretary, Panchayat Sewak Gram Panchayat Raj, Jhakhara, Post- Jhakhara, Prakhand- Shambhuganj, District- Banka --- Respondents. ------- 2. 3.2.2009 Heard Mr. Sri Nandan Singh for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.15. It relates to appointment of Shiksha Mitra in the reserved category of most backward class in Jhakhara Gram Panchayat. The petitioner complains before this Court that he has not been appointed even though he is superior to one applicant in this category. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that Jhakhara Gram Panchayat had issued advertisement to fill up the following posts of Shiksha Mitra: vukjf{kr 5 in vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ 2 in fiNM+k oxZ 1 in vuq0 tkfr 1 inA dqy 9 in 2 The petitioner was a candidate for the most backward category. No appointment was made to the post of most backward category, and the vacancy of this category remained unfilled. The writ petition is with respect to appointments made way back in 2004. This led to an enquiry by the Block Development Officer, Belhar, who submitted his report vide memo no., 758 dated 29.7.2004 (Annexure-3). It appears on a perusal of the same that the petitioner was perhaps the better of two candidates. The petitioner had scored 53% marks. Pawan Kumar, the other candidate of this category, scored 51.42%. It appears to me that no appointment was made from most backward category. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of discrimination, in as much as no person inferior to the petitioner in the merit list has been appointed. Law is well settled that the court is normally reluctant in issuing direction to the respondent authorities to fill up a post unless the petitioner has been able to establish a case of discrimination or some such violation of constitutional norms, inter alia, for the reason that it involves financial implications. It is entirely for the employer to fill up, or not to fill up, a particular post, so long it does not violate the constitutional norms. No person inferior to the petitioner in the merit list has been appointed. No such case has been made out by the petitioner. The writ petition suffers from fatal delay. The appointment was made way back in 2004, and the enquiry report 3 was submitted on 29.7.2004 (Annexure-3), whereas the writ petition was lodged in this Court on 2.2.2009. It suffers from un-explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)