D. S. Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri T. N. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. S. Misra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri S. N. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Though the petition has not been admitted formally the requisite affidavits have been exchanged. The facts are clear and the petition can be disposed of finally. We, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel proceed to" decide the petition finally.
(2.) THE petitioner was Head Master at Daya Nand Junior High School, Panika Bazar, Tahsil Salempur, District Deoria. It appears, he absented from duty with effect from 17th October, 1979 without any leave. In December, 1979 he applied for grant of leave. THE prayer was rejected and the petitioner was required to join. THE petitioner did not join Consequently, by means of an order dated 5th February, 1980 the services ot the petitioner were terminated. THEreafter, the manager of the institution, vide his letter dated 27-5-1981, applied to the District Basic Education Officer, Deona for permission to advertise the vacancy caused due to the termination of the services of the petitioner and hold selection therefor. THE permission sought for was granted vide letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria dated 22-6-61. THEreupon, a regular selection was held wherein Sri Ravmdra Singh, the respondent no. 3, was selected and the selection was duly approved by the District Basic Education Officer through his letter dated 13-1-1982. Since then the respondent no. 3 is working as Head Master of the School without any challenge from anybody, including the petitioner. Suddenly, after the lapse of an interminable period of more than five years, the petitioner woke up and filed a representation to the Assistant Director of Education (Basic), VII Circle, Gorakhpur on 24-8-85. This representation, it appears, was transmitted to District Basic Education Officer, Deona for disposal vide order of the Assistant Director of Education dated 6th August, 1986. The District Basic Education Officer by means of his order dated 9th February, 1987 dismissed the representation of the petitioner. The order of termination dated 5th February, 1980 and the order dated 9th February, 1987, passed by the District Basic Education Officer are under challenge in this petition. It is apparent that the petitioner kept on slumbering for more than five years since the date of termination of his service. In the meantime, the vacancy caused on the post held by him was advertised and filled in on permanent basis. The new incumbent, namely the respondent no. 3, is still working. Indisputably, today, there is no vacancy. Further, the appointment of the respondent no. 3 is neither under challenge nor has, in any way been demonstrated to suffer from any infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of termination was invalid as it was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without approval of the District Basic Education Officer. It is not necessary to examine this submission inasmuch as, we feel the petitioner is guilty of gross laches in allowing the alleged invalid order to operate for more, than half a decade which led to creation and perfection of valuable rights in favour of the respondent no. 3. If any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, surely, he himself is responsible for it and he does not deserve any assistance from this court. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case where this court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;