IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.332 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 17887 of 2008 With I.A.No.1421 of 2011 With I.A.No.1420 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chhapra. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan. 7. Deputy Inspector of School, Siwan. - Respondents- Appellants Versus Anil Kumar son of Bhikhari Singh, resident of village-Amlori, Police Station-Siwan Mufassil, District- Siwan -Petitioner-Respondent. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar, AC-GA1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 2 22.02.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1420 of 2011 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 104 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re.Letters Patent Appeal No.332 of 2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar and others against the judgment and order dated 3rd August 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17887 of 2008. The subject matter at dispute is the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner as Clerk made by the Regional Deputy Director on 7th March 1991. According to the appellant authorities, the appointment of the writ petitioner made on 7th March 1991 was in contravention of the relevant Rules/instructions and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said appointment was quashed by the appellants in the year 1993. In ensuing C.W.J.C. No. 6260 of 1993 this Court, by judgment and order dated 30th September 1993, held that the temporary appointment of the 3 petitioner was later confirmed on 3rd March 1992 and accordingly allowed the writ petition. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was reinstated in service. Once again his service was terminated on 6th July 2000 after giving him an opportunity to show cause. The said order came to be set aside on 14th August 2001 in C.W.J.C. No.8558 of 2000. Once again the eligibility of the petitioner was questioned and his service was terminated on 19th April 2008. The said order was subject matter of challenge in above C.W.J.C. No. 17887 of 2008. The learned Single Judge has, after recording the history of litigations, held that the petitioner was wrongly persecuted for the fault of the officials for having made appointment without roster clearances and roster rules. In view of the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the impugned order dated 19th April 2008. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, has appeared for the appellant-State of Bihar and others. He has strenuously urged that the appointment of the petitioner was in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Irrespective of the delay and the long service rendered by the 4 petitioner, his service could not have been continued. We see no substance in the submission made by Mr. Alok Kumar. Mr. Alok Kumar has not been able to dislodge the finding that the petitioner’s service was later confirmed on 3rd March 1992. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Bibhash (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)