IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.276 of 2008 BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL & ANR Versus MOHAN THAKUR & ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 13th August, 2008. We heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General for the appellants. 2. As a matter of fact, in the light of the Office order dated 23rd June, 2008 (Annexure 7), annexed with the first supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants on 22nd July, 2008, we find no justifiable ground to admit this appeal. 3. In the order dated 25th February, 2008, impugned in the present appeal, the Single Judge has, in unmistakable terms, noticed that the petitioners (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein were not claiming any absorption. A limited prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners (respondent nos. 1 to 3) before the Single Judge. That prayer was for continuation of their posting with Bihar Education Project Council where they were working on deputation and the vacancies existed. The Single Judge observed that there were - 2 - vacancies and posts have been advertised for filling up those vacancies. What has been observed by the Single Judge is supported by the office order dated 23rd June, 2008. 4. Obviously, in the light of the office order that has already been issued by the appellants on 23rd June, 2008, we hardly find any justification in the grievance raised by the counsel for the appellants that the petitioners (respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein) could not have been directed to continue on the post they were holding. The petitioners are not claiming any right to the posts nor they are claiming absorption. Their only prayer was for continuance of their employment with the Council as there were vacancies and that is what has been ordered by the Single Judge. 5. In the light of office order dated 23rd June, 2008 (Annexure 7) annexed with the first supplementary affidavit dated 22nd July, 2008, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/