IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA L.P.A. No. 376 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 4781 of 2007 With I.A. No. 1644 of 2011 ====================================================== Punam Kumari, W/o Sri Rajeshwar Prasad, R/o Village-Raiesh, Gram Panchayat Raiesh, P.O.-Bhagwatipur, Karmour, P.S.-Pandarak, District- Patna. ……… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Patna. 3. The District Education Officer, Patna. 4. The Sub Divisional Education Officer, Barh, District-Patna. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Pandarak, District-Patna. 6. Sri Sona Prasad, Panchayat Sevak Gram Panchayat Paraswan, P.S.- Pandarakh, District-Patna. 7. Sri Yadu Nandan Prasad, Member of Siksha Samiti and Ward Member of the Panchayat Raiesh, P.O.-Bhagwati, Karmaur, P.S.-Pandarak, District-Patna. 8. Smt. Rekha Devi (Mukhia), W/o Sri Bijendra Yadav @ Birendra Prasad, Gram Panchayat Raiesh, P.O.-Bhagwati, Karmour, P.S.- Pandarak, District-Patna. …….. Respondents. ====================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S. S.Mishra, AC to AAG 7. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 01.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1644 of 2011: This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 64 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 2 the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re. L.P.A. No. 376 of 2011: The appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th October 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 4781 of 2007 The complaint is that on the date of hearing before the learned single Judge, the learned Advocate representing the appellant-writ petitioner was not present. Thus the impugned order was made ex-parte against the appellant. We have heard the learned Advocate on merits of the writ petition to allay his complaint that he was not heard by the learned single Judge. The appellant has claimed appointment as a Siksha Mitra pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2006. It is the case of the appellant that persons less meritorious than the appellant, were selected and appointed as Siksha Mitra for extraneous consideration. The reliance is placed on a copy of the affidavit made by one Yadunandan Mahto on 11th January 2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1 has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the said Yadunandan Mahto was the member of the Selection Committee and that he has categorically stated that appointment of one candidate Sindhu Kumari was made on extraneous consideration. The affidavit hardly inspires confidence. Firstly, it is not stated that the said Yadunandan Mahto was the 3 member of the Selection Committee. Secondly, the affidavit is made nearly three years after the date of selections. Thirdly, the said affidavit was not placed before the learned single Judge. In above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. Mr. Arun Kumar has not been able to make out that the writ petitioner was wrongly denied the appointment as Siksha Mitra. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran,J)