IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9144 of 2007 Surya Narain Yadav, son of late Sri Prasad Yadav, resident of village & P.O. Godai, P.S. Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Patna 2. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. The Medical Officer, Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 30.9.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner in this writ application has assailed an order of his termination dated 14.6.2001 after more than six years by filing this case on 26.7.2007, this Court must hold the said writ petition to be not maintainable only on the ground of delay and laches. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would, however, explain that the petitioner was waiting for result of some similarly situated persons and in this context has referred to the statement made in paragraph no.8 of the writ petition which reads as follows: “That most of the employees victimized by the impugned order as aforesaid including Sri Bhola Nath Sahu preferred writ application before this Hon’ble Court vide C.W.J.C.No. 11328/2003, which was heard alongwith L.P.A.No. 946/2003 and analogous matter i.e. approximately 819 Letters Patent Appeal and writ petitioners, which have been disposed of by the judgment and order dated 26.6.2006, the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivakirti Singh. The said judgment is governed by the judgment of the constitution bench 2 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, the State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi & ors., reported in 2006 (2-PLJR) (SC-363) and in accordance with observation and direction given by the Apex Court in para 44 of the said judgment.” From the reading of the aforementioned averment of the petitioner it would become clear that the petitioner also wants his case to be re-examined, inasmuch as the Division Bench in the referred matter vide order dated 26.6.2006 had only asked the authorities to make one time exercise for regularization of service in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006)4 SCC 1. The said exercise has already been completed in the cases of other persons and only 91 persons were found fit to be regularized. Now this Court would not like to reopen the flood- gate by remitting every matter and particularly when the petitioner has slept over his right for a period over six years. That being so, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/