IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.245 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Home (Spl.), Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General, Home Guard, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commandant, Home Guard, Patna … Appellants/Respondents Versus Arbind Jee, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, resident of village and Post Office-Dighi Kalan, East Tola, Police Station- Hazipur Sadar, District-Vaishali, at present working as Adhinayak Lipik, Home Guard, Bihar Head Quarter at Patna …… ….. Respondent/ petitioner. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Chhote Lal Narain Singh, Standing counsel-I Mr. Vinod Kumar, Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel-I For the respondent : Mr. V.R.P.Singh, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 29th September, 2008 This Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of two hundred one days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.1955/2008) has been made. 2. Upon careful perusal of the application, we are satisfied that the cause set out in the application constitutes sufficient cause. 3. We accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. I.A.No.1955/2008 stands disposed of. - 2 - 5. We heard the standing counsel-I, for the appellants and the counsel for the respondent. 6. It is apparent from Annexure-2, dated 20th November, 1985, annexed with the writ petition, that the order of appointment came to be issued in favour of the present respondent (original writ petitioner) on that date. However, he was not given appointment on the ground that he did not confirm to the physical standard applicable to the constable. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the respondent ought to have been appointed as Adhinayak Lipik in the Home Guard Department and quashed the action of the present appellants in not appointing the present respondent. Obviously, the appointment of the writ petitioner (present respondent) has to relate back to the date of order dated 20th November, 1985. 7. Seen thus, the consideration of the matter by the single judge cannot be faulted. Letters Patent Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. 8. Upon dismissal of appeal, prayer for interim relief does not survive. Accordingly, interim application (I.A.No.1954/2008) stands rejected. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil