Order : Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him from class-IV post to class-III post since he has the necessary qualification for being appointed to the said post. A further prayer has been made for setting aside the part of the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bokaro vide memo No. 12/Establish, dated 07.01.2008 by which petitioner has been appointed in a class IV post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner is highly qualified, but he was appointed in a class IV post and the person similarly situated, namely, Ashish Kumar Boral, has been appointed in a class-III post after the District Compassionate Appointment Committee has reviewed his case in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6275 of 2006. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to the said Ashish Kumar Boral and therefore it was incumbent upon the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment from class-IV post to class-III post by setting aside the appointment on a class-IV post. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 7743 of 2011 which was withdrawn. It has been further submitted that in fact after considering the qualification of the petitioner he was given compassionate appointment in a class IV post and there has been delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. It has also been submitted that the question of review or giving appointment to the petitioner in a class-IV post shall be against the resolution as contained in memo No. 13293 dated 5.10.1991. 5. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7743 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.2.2013, as the petitioner had sought liberty to pursue his grievances departmentally. 6. The meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bokaro dated 7.1.2008 reveals that the qualification of the petitioner was considered and thereafter it was unanimously decided to appoint him on a class IV post. 6. The meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bokaro dated 7.1.2008 reveals that the qualification of the petitioner was considered and thereafter it was unanimously decided to appoint him on a class IV post. The petitioner had initially raised his grievance before this Court in the year 2011 although he was appointed pursuant to the recommendation of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in the year 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed much reliance on the order dated 17.09.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6275 of 2006 in which a direction was given to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee to reconsider the case of the said petitioner and take a final decision. The facts of said case appears otherwise, as the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6275 of 2006 on his appointment in the year 2006, in a class-IV post had immediately raised his grievance for being considered to be appointed in a class-IV post. The petitioner in the present case was appointed in the year 2008 had remained silent for 3 years before preferring a writ petition, which was ultimately disposed of as withdrawn on 20.2.2013. Thereafter again the petitioner has remained silent for more than 2 years after disposal of the said writ petition and has raised the same issue once again in the present writ petition. 7. The entire exercise points to the laches on the part of the petitioner in redressing his grievance before this Court. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner cannot equate his case to that of Ashish Kumar Boral. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.