IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1193 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2488 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 5859 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1193 of 2011. ====================================================== Chhaya Bharti, W/o Sri Praphul Kumar, R/v - Barohauna, P.O.- Brohauna, P.S. - Karakat, Distt. - Banka (Petitioner in CWJC 2488/10) .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, 3. The District Magistrate, Banka, Distt. – Banka, 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka, Distt. – Banka, 5. The District Welfare Officer, Banka, Distt. – Banka, 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Barahat, Distt. – Banka, 7. The Panchayat Sewak Mirjapur, Changeri Gram Panchayat, P.S. - Barahat, Block - Barahat, Distt.- Banka, 8. The Mukhiya of Mirjapur Panchayat, Block - Barahat, Distt. -Banka (Respondents in CWJC No. 2488/10) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parth Sharthi, SC 10 and Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to SC 10. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 16-09-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 19th August 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2488 of 2010. Patna High Court LPA No.1193 of 2011 (3) dt.16-09-2011 2 / 3 2 The appellant-writ petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur dated 17th September 2009 made in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 01/2008-09 setting aside the order dated 17th December 2007 made by the District Magistrate, Banka upholding the appointment of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika. The challenge has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and also on merits. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has strenuously urged that the appointment of the appellant was made in 2004. The said appointment could not have been examined on the basis of the circular issued in 2006. The appointment of the appellant was in consonance with the then prevalent circular dated 13th June 1998. We are unable to agree with the learned Advocate. The learned single Judge has categorically held that even during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant did not make any effort to cure the defect. Besides, as it is apparent from the impugned order, the learned single Judge has examined the appointment of the appellant on the basis of the circular dated 13th June 1998. The contentions raised before us are, therefore, untenable. This Appeal is filed 290 days beyond the period of limitation. It is stated that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was suffering from Gall Bladder stone and had to undergo surgery. Therefore, the delay. The supporting medical report suggests that the learned counsel was under medical care during the months from July 2010 to October 2010. The Appeal was filed in July 2011. The delay from November 2010 to July 2011 has not been explained at all. Patna High Court LPA No.1193 of 2011 (3) dt.16-09-2011 3 / 3 3 For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal on limitation as well as on merits. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)