IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1569 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMANDANT GENERAL BIHAR HOME GUARD, CHHAJUBAG, PATNA 3. THE COMMANDANT BIHAR HOME GUARD, CHHAJUBAGH, PATNA 4. THE COMMANDANT SPECIAL BATTALION HOME GUARD, BHAGALPUR DHOBIA KOTHI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR. Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. DASARATH MEHTAR S/O SHRI CHIKU MEHTAR R/S- ASANJORE, P.S.- JAMORE, DISTT.- DUMKA (JHARKHAND). .. Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 3. 13.05.2010 Before adverting on the issue of notice on the question of limitation we thought it apposite to address to the merits of the case. Learned Single Judge while disposing of writ petition has directed as follows:- “…Inasmuch as the law under which the petitioner had been appointed, he could be relieved, it would not be appropriate on my part to direct restoration of the services of the petitioner, but inasmuch as in the affidavit it has been stated that the Act authorizes re-enrollment and since there is not a whisper as to incapacity of the petitioner to discharge the duties of Home Guard, unless the petitioner is re-enrolled, no one junior to the petitioner in the force shall be re- enrolled, and for that purpose, engagement of each Home Guard shall be calculated on the basis of the four years cycle. ..” Having heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned AAG- 2 III, for the State we are of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the provision of the Act as he has only said that the respondent- writ petitioner should be reenrolled. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal and hence there is no warrant to issue notice on the question of limitation. In the result, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected and as a natural corollary the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)