IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.215 of 2006 ***** 1. Manoj Kumar son of Jai Narayan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Atardah, P.S. & District-Muzaffarpur. 2. Vijaya Kumar Sharma son of Late Jagarnath Prasad Sharma, resident of Mohalla Imamganj, P.S. + District-Muzaffarpur. 3. Sayed Zafar Haidar son of Syed Hassan Haider, resident of Mohalla, Chandwara, Darjitola, P.S. and Distt. Town Muzaffarpur. 4. Rabindra Kumar son of Ram Pavitra Singh resident of Village Goriari, P.S. Kurhari, District Muzaffarpur. 5. Nilam Kumari D/o Late K.P. Sinhg, resident of Village+P.S. Kurhani District Muzaffarpur. 6. Mohit Kumar Yadav son of Bhonu Rai, resident of village Madhupur Susta, P.S. Maniari, District Muzaffarpur. 7. Janardan Prasad Sharma, son of Late Jagarnath Prasad Sharma, resident of Mohalla Imamganj, P.S. + District-Muzaffarpur. ……. …(Petitioners)-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar. 5. The Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Registrar, Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 7. The Principal, Mahila Shilp Kala Bhawan, College, Muzaffarpur. ….. … Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 23rd October, 2008. - 2 - We heard the counsel for the appellants. 2. The Single Judge rightly observed that pursuant to the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners and others being C.W.J.C. No. 9629 of 1993 decided on 23rd March, 1994, a representation was made by the petitioners, which came to be disposed of on 27th June, 1994. Almost after lapse of ten years, the claim for absorption has been reiterated, which was found to be stale. We find no error in the order of the Single Judge. 3. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted, it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-