IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1390 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 15434/2008) 1. Surendra Prasad Ambastha, S/O Late Dineshwar Lal, R/O Mohalla- Saristabad, P.O.- Anishabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna ---- Appellant--- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna-800015 3. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna- 800015 4. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 6. The Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 7. The Joint Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 8. The Deputy Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ---- Respondents---Respondents. ---------------------------------- 4. 24.8.2011 Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Piyush Lall, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order 2 dated 25.6.2001, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15434 of 2008 ( Surendra Prasad Ambastha Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition was filed for a direction to the respondents for including the name of the petitioner in the cadre of Personal Assistant from the erstwhile cadre of Stenographer, as he then was. The petitioner (the appellant herein) was appointed on the post of Stenographer on 1.4.1981 in the office of the Director, Employment and Training, Government of Bihar under Labour Department. On 7.3.1987 persons working as Stenographer were sought to be amalgamated in the cadre of Personal Assistants under the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, as it then was. For such exercise names were called for from various departments for including them in the newly created cadre of Personal Assistants. It appears that the petitioner was not included in the cadre of the Personal Assistants which led to the present litigation. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was not inclined to interfere in the matter 3 mainly on the ground of delay in approaching this Court for the relief sought for. It appears that the tentative gradation list for the first time was published in the year 1995 and pursuant thereto the final gradation list was finalized in the year 2003. The cause of action for the petitioner arose in the year 1987 and also in the year 1995 when the tentative gradation list was published but no objection as envisaged was filed by him. Even after publication of the final gradation list in the year 2003, the petitioner approached this Court only in the year 2008. Learned Single Judge in such circumstances relying on two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. 4. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has preferred the present appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order under appeal and other materials available on record, we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge as 4 well as the grounds mentioned therein and find no infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)