IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12733 of 2007 DINESH RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 3/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher on 1.10.2004. It is his case that notwithstanding the fact that he possesses higher marks, his candidature was ignored when respondents-8, 9 and 10 came to be appointed. He claims to have represented before the District Superintendent of Education on 24.5.2005. He claims to have submitted further representations before other authorities on 14.8.2006 and 12.7.2007. The prayer, thus, is to annul the appointment of respondents-8 to 10. On the own showing of the petitioner his original appointment was contractual in nature which would have come to an end at best in April, 2006 when the allegedly wrong appointments were made in May, 2005. The rights, if any, thereafter are inchoate right which cannot furnish a cause of action.Respondents-8 to 10 have continued to work since May, 2005. Even though the petitioner wants annulment of the appointment of respondents 8 to 10, there is no pleading in the writ petition that pursuant to their initial appointment their contractual services were extended ultimately to their acquiring the status of Panchayat Teachers under Rule-20 of the 2006 Rules, which came into force in 1.7.2006. The petitioner appears to have been indolent and not vigilant in - 2 - protection of his own rights. He appears to have slept over the matter since May, 2005 till September, 2007 when he filed the present writ application. It stands settled that mere filing of representations is not an adequate explanation to explain the delay in approaching the writ court. The Court is not persuaded to entertain this belated writ application. Any consideration of the pleadings of the petitioner at this belated stage shall set off a chain reaction. It would entail consequences to those who have continued on the job by reason of the indolence of the petitioner, that may require a fresh advertisement and entire selection process being conducted afresh with all necessary costs etc. to be incurred by the State, all because the petitioner suddenly decides to wake up one day in the fond hope of possibly acquiring the status of a Panchayat Teacher under the new Rules which came into force on 1.7.2007 and the present speculative writ application may bring him that benefit. There is not merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )