IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1132 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16314 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 5411 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1132 of 2011. ====================================================== Md. Mansoor Alam, S/o Abdul Majeed, R/o Vill.- Kamla, P.S.- Manijhaul, Block- Cheriya Bariarpur, Distt.- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 5. The Block Development Officer, Nawkothi, Distt.- Begusarai 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Nawkothi, Begusarai .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nakul Kumar Jamuar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : ----- ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 19-10-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5411 of 2011. This application is filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1 year and 158 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The only ground stated is that that at the relevant time the appellant was employed at Kolkata and had no knowledge of Patna High Court LPA No.1132 of 2011 (5) dt.19-10-2011 2 / 2 2 the judgment of the learned single Judge. The bare statement has not been supported by any evidence. Besides, the matter at dispute is the termination of the service of the appellant as Prakhand Teacher in Middle School, Rajkapur Nawakothi, District – Begusarai on the premise that he was not qualified for appointment as teacher. It is not in dispute that the appellant possesses the certificate of Maulvi equivalent to the Intermediate examination. Under the relevant Rule, the holders of the certificate of Maulvi are not eligible for appointment as Prakhand Teacher except to the post of Teacher in Urdu. Challenge to the said Rule in CWJC No. 1555 of 2011 has been rejected by us on 22nd September 2011. Moreover, in the petition before the learned single Judge, the appellant has not challenged the validity of the relevant Rule. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant was not qualified for being appointed as Prakhand Teacher. Therefore, the present Appeal. We see no merit in this Appeal. Besides, the inordinate delay of 1 year 158 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. For the aforesaid reasons, the Interlocutory Application and the Letters Patent Appeal are rejected. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)