1. Heard counsel for the Writ Petitioner and learned Government counsel.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 3.2.1992 seeking to challenge the order dated 8.10.1987 rejecting his claim to appointment in a Taken Over Government School, rejected on the basis of the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Ram Naresh Prasad Nibas v. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 341.

3. According to the writ petitioner, he was appointed as an untrained teacher in the Kalyan High School, Chuliha in the district of Deoghar on 25.1.1979. No doubt, the respondents have a case that the private school itself was started only in the year 1980. It is seen that the permission for establishment of the private school was given only in the year 1980. Whatever it be, when the Government took over this school on 5.7.1983, the petitioner was, even, according to his own case, an untrained teacher. Therefore, the concerned Committee found that he was not liable to be absorbed in the Government School. A report was prepared recommending the names of five trained teachers for absorption and it was accepted.

4. According to the petitioner, at the time the School was taken over, he had been selected for undergoing teachers training and he had joined the course for the session 1983-85 and had obtained B.Ed. Degree in December, 1986. According to him, going by a Circular issued by the Government of Bihar on 21.12.1982, he must also be considered eligible for absorption in the Government School. At the time of take over, he was undergoing training. It seems that some representation had been made in this regard before the concerned authority. He also approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5609/1983. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court taking into consideration the pendency of the representation before the authority, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and observed that it is expected that the representation would be disposed of at an early date. Thereafter, after hearing the writ petitioner, the representation was rejected by order dated 8.10.1987 marked as Annexure-1 in the Writ petition.

5. According to the petitioner, he had moved the State Administrative Tribunal with his grievance regarding Annexure-1 order, but on the retirement of the Chairman, the Tribunal itself was wound up and therefore, he filed the writ petition on 3.2.1992 more than four years after the order itself was passed. Though this aspect has been generally referred to in the writ petition, no details have been furnished to show that the petitioner was diligently pursuing his challenge to this order in any other forum so as to enable us to overlook the laches on the part of the petitioner in advocating this Court almost five years after the impugned order was passed. We are in fact inclined to the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches.

6. That apart, on going through Annexure-1, it is seen that the concerned authority only followed the ratio of the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. That cannot be said to be improper; nor can it make the order unsustainable merely because in another case reported as Smt. Shakuntala v. State of Bihar, 1990 (1) BLJ 201, corresponding to 1990 PLJR (1) 387, a learned Single Judge purported to distinguish the Full Bench on the basis of the Circular dated 21st December, 1982 providing that untrained teacher who were actually undergoing training in Colleges recognised by the State Government should also be preferentially absorbed subject to their successful completion of the training. In the writ petition, though the benefit of that Circular is claimed, the claim of the petitioner that he was undergoing training in a recognised training college is disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Even though in the rejoinder, the petitioner had sought to question this stand adopted by the respondents in