IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.540 of 2008 RAMJEE PRASAD SINGH Versus THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 23rd July, 2008. The appeal suffers from a delay of 2 years and 115 days. For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 4285 of 2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay for the reasons set out in the application, we are of the view that the appeal is entirely misconceived and devoid of any substance. 2. Although the appellant’s claim for the post of Deputy Registrar has been accepted by the Single Judge, it has been specifically recorded in the order dated 16th January, 2006 that the counsel for the petitioner gave up his case for promotion to the post of the Joint Registrar. A review application was filed by the appellant seeking review of the order dated 16th January, 2006. While considering the review application, the Single Judge in his order dated 6th May, 2008 observed thus : “In so far as the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar with effect from 1.5.1998 is concerned, the same could not have been granted with effect from 30.6.1998, the date on which Lal Bihari Pandey had retired, and also for the further - 2 - reason that he could not have been promoted to the post of Joint Registrar till such time he was substantively promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar. The final order with respect to the issue relating to promotion to the post of Joint Registrar was not passed until the petitioner’s retirement, and he was in additional charge as Joint Registrar with effect from 1.5.1998, till his retirement, on a purely ad hoc basis. This has to be read with the observation in paragraph 8 of the order under review that learned counsel for the petitioner had given up the claim for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar.” 3. For what has been recorded by the Single Judge in the orders, referred to above, we find no justification in appellant’s agitating his claim for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar in appeal. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Pratap Singh Dayal Singh Rajput [1998 (9) SCC, 515] has no application. 4. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. This also disposes of I.A. No. 4285 of 2008. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-