IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1729 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5602 of 1997 With Interlocutory Application No. 7902 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1729 of 2011 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, son of Shri Mukesh Prasad Singh, resident of Village Belbar, P.S. Vaishali, Distt. Vaishali. .... Petitioner.... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. .... Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : ------ ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 21-11-2011 Re: I.A. No. 7902 of 2011 The delay of 38 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re: L.P.A. No. 1729 of 2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.5602 of 1997, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Pursuant to the 1987 advertisement the appellant applied for appointment as Clerk in the Education Department. As the Patna High Court LPA No.1729 of 2011 (2) dt.21-11-2011 2 / 2 2 appellant had not received the appointment letter, he filed above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that in the merit list, the name of the appellant appeared at serial no. 41. The appointments were made up to serial no. 39. The appellant, therefore, should have been appointed along with others. It is not the case of the appellant that any one below serial no. 39 or for that matter below serial no. 41 was issued appointment letter. Mere inclusion in the merit list did not confer a right of appointment to the appellant. Besides, now after more than 24 years the appellant can not be inducted in public employment. The Appeal is devoid of merit. Hence dismissed in limine. B. Tiwary/Anjani/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)