IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.625 of 2008 RANDHIR KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Vinay Ranjan For the respondent nos. 1to 7 : Mr. V.M.K.Sinha, SC - III P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 22nd August, 2008 The appeal is barred by time. The delay is of 355 days. In the application (IA. No.4875 of 2008) for condonation thereof, cause has been set out to the effect that appellant’s mother was seriously ill during the this period; she remained admitted in All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi and after treatment of one year at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, she died. Although no material has been placed on record along with the application in this regard but we assume aforesaid facts in appellant’s favour which may justify condonation of delay. Hence, even if, we condone the delay, we are of the view that the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 3. The appellant (writ petitioner) prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to extend his engagement as Panchayat Primary Teacher ( Shiksha Mitra) in the light of the notification 2 dated 8th August, 2006. 4. The counsel for the appellant does not dispute that at the time of initial tenure of service, minimum educational qualification was matric, but in the year 2005, the minimum educational qualification for appointment as Shiksha Mitra has been amended which prescribes, as Intermediate with minimum 45% marks. The single judge found that although the petitioner has completed Intermediate but he secured less than 45% marks. 5. Nothing has been shown to us by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant secured more than 45% marks in the Intermediate examination. 6. Seen thus, consideration of the matter by the single judge does not call for any interference. 7. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. This disposes of IA. No.4875 of 2008 as well. 8. We, however, observe that dismissal of appeal by us shall not preclude the appellant in making the representation to the State government for redressal of his grievance. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-