IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.384 of 2008 UPENDRA NARAYAN YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Amarendra Nath Tiwary, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General-III ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 09th September, 2008 The writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by the Single Judge on 10th April, 2008 on the ground of delay. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “The controversy in this case relates to a case for promotion from Grade IV to Grade III based on a competitive examination in the year 1994 in which the petitioners claim that they were successful. It is their own case that notwithstanding their success, illegal appointments came to be made. On their own admission, third party rights have accrued. On a claim from a penal of 1994, the writ application has been filed nearly seven years later in the year 2001 with no explanation of this long and inordinate delay. This Court is satisfied that on the ground of delay and laches alone, this writ application is not fit to be entertained. It is, accordingly, dismissed.” 2. The counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had made representation to the concerned authorities for - 2 - redressal of their grievance and they hoped that their grievance would be redressed by the concerned authorities, and, therefore, they did not approach the court earlier. 3. We are afraid, if the representation was made by the appellants for redressal of their grievance before the concerned authority, and, within reasonable time, such representation was not disposed of, they ought to have approached the court within reasonable time and not waited for more than seven years. 4. From the order of the single judge, it transpires that the rights of third parties have intervened, as some appointments came to be made pursuant to the competitive examination in the year 1994. Although the case of the appellants is that such appointments are illegal, but even if that be so, action was needed to be taken within reasonable time. 5. Be that as it may, no case for interference is made out in the impugned order. 6. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil