IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1164 of 2010 1. Manoj Kumar son of Ragho Prasad, resident of village Kakhada, PO Sohsarai, District Nalanda 2. Bimlesh Kumar 3. Ajit Kumar 4. Puja Kumari 5. Rekha Kumari 6. Sunil Kumar 7. Suman Kumar Sinha 8. Rekha Kumari 9. Niranjan Kumar 10. Rakesh Ranjan 11. Sanjay Kumar Pathak 12. Kamlesh Kumar 13. Sanjeev Kumar 14. Shiv Prasad 15. Sanjay Kumar 16. Dayanand Kumar 17. Vikash Kumar ......Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health,Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director in Chief Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Madhubani, West Champaran, Bettiah 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Sikta, West Champaran, Bettiah 8. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Manjhouliya, West Champaran ............ Respondents/Respondents 9. Madhav Prasad son of Late Suresh Prasad Mehta resident of Purbi Kasba (Krishnabagh) PO Jhanganj PS Mehdiganj, Distt. Patna ....Petitioner/Formal respondent ----------- 02- 1/7/2011 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Singh for the appellants, and learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Advocate no.IX. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of CWJC No.476 of 2010, 2 and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 19.5.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay in approaching the Court. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellants herein were appointed on various class IV and class III posts under order of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, on different dates in the year 1999. His successor passed orders in 2001, dispensing with the services of the present appellants on the ground that the appointments were without following the prescribed procedure, without issuing the advertisement, reservation, roster, etc. The aggrieved persons preferred the aforesaid writ petition after lapse of nine years. We are, therefore, of the view that the writ petition has rightly been dismissed on the ground of abnormal and unexplained delay. Furthermore, the appellants in the present case have worked only for two years and seek to raise a stale claim. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal ) mrl