IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.737 of 2009 KUMARI POONAM D/O SHRI JAGADISH RAO, R/O VILLAGE-MAGHIYA, P.S.-BALTHAR, DIST-WEST CHAMPARAN…….PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIKTA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SIKTA, DISTRICT, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 7. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GOURIPUR AT SIKTA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 8. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAJ PARSAUNI, P.S.-BALTHAR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 9. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAJ PARSAUNI, P.S.- BALTHAR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH……………………………..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant:- Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, No.1, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the respondents:- Mr. Mohan Kr. Singh, AC to SC-1 ---------- 03. 25-Jun-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the state. 2. There is delay of 51 days in preferring this appeal against order of the writ court dated 19.2.2009 whereby writ petition bearing CWJC. No.16280 of 2007 was dismissed mainly on the ground that order of termination passed against the petitioner who was Panchayat Shiksha 2 Mitra was passed on 26.7.2005 but the writ petition was filed in the year 2007 after the rules of recruitment were changed in the year 2006. 3. A perusal of the impugned order of termination shows that it is a composite order whereby after terminating petitioner from service another lady was appointed on the post as per recommendation of the concerned Committee. 4. We were inclined to issue notice in the limitation matter upon the concerned lady who has been appointed in place of the petitioner and then it transpired that she was not a party to the writ proceeding and accordingly she has not been made a party to this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remitted to the writ court where he may pray for adding the concerned lady as private respondent. 6. Considering the nature of the termination order whereby another lady has been appointed in place of the petitioner and finding that even limitation cannot be condoned as she is not a party, without notice to her, we find that the 3 writ petition suffered from further defect of non impleadment of necessary party. 7. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of limitation also. perwez (R.M. Doshit, C.J. ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)