JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sahil, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 02.12.1992, whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated. 3. Mrs. Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to a policy decision taken by the Government of Bihar in the year 1981-82 in terms of circular No. 16641 dated 03.12.1980. She submits that petitioners were enrolled in the employment exchange and in view of the aforesaid circular, names of the petitioners were called from the employment exchange. She submits that in view of the circular dated 03.12.1980, Deputy Commissioner prepared a panel, in which names of the petitioners were included for appointment on the Class IV posts. Further submission is that the petitioners’ services have been terminated without any enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. She submits that the impugned order has been passed in relation to C.W.J.C. No. 4451 of 1991, in which these petitioners were not even made parties, but, inspite of that, services of the petitioners were terminated referring to said writ petition. She further submits that case of the petitioners were fully covered in view of the order dated 15.4.1994 passed in W.P.(S) No.2669 of 2003. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sahil, counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989 on temporary basis only for three months (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). However, they were allowed to continue and ultimately, in the year 1992 their services were terminated. He further submits that the petitioners have approached this Court after 20 years and therefore, on the ground of delay and latches this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners have approached this Court after 20 years from the date of cause of action. It is well settled that the writ petition is meant for a person who is agile with respect to his rights and in this case petitioners approached this Court after 20 years and in the meantime, rights might have accrued in favour of other persons and therefore, this writ petition fails. 6. This writ petition stands dismissed.