IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.756 of 2010 ***** Dwarika Prasad Yadava @ Dwarika Prasad Yadav, son of Bishwanath Prasad, resident of village + P.O.-Navtan, P.S.-Ekma, District-Saran. …. …. Respondent-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Saran. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Saran, Chapra. 5. The Block Development Officer, Ekma. 6. The Surpanch, Gram Kachahari, Maney, Saran …. …. Respondents-Respondents 7. Anup Kumar Singh, son of Vikrma Singh, resident of village Maney, P.S.- Ekma, District-Saran at Chapra. …. …. Petitioner-Respondent ----------- 2. 23.4.2010. I.A. No.4024 of 2010: - This is an application for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal. Before adverting to the facet of condonation of delay, we thought it apposite to address ourselves with regard to the merits of the case. Anup Kumar Singh, respondent no.7 herein invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court where he has challenged the action of the State Government because his services were terminated. The learned Single Judge has passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon - 2 - an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6762 of 2009 and analogous cases as also another order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13836 of 2009. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if this writ application is disposed off in similar terms with directions to the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj to re-decide the issue of termination of the petitioner after hearing all considered including respondent no. 7, within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, during which time period the impugned order of termination of the petitioner shall remain in abeyance to finally merge with the fresh order that may be passed by the Principal Secretary. It shall also be open for the petitioner to raise any further issues before the principal Secretary, if so advised.” The respondent no.7, the present appellant, was not appointed but he was in the select list. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that though he was made a party he was not issued any notice. In our considered opinion, when the writ petitioner had challenged his order of termination and the - 3 - learned Single Judge has passed the order, which we have reproduced hereinabove, no prejudice has been caused to the present appellant. Thus, there is no justification to issue notice on the question of limitation and accordingly the delay in filing the appeal stands rejected and as a fall out the appeal stands dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)