IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.937 of 2008 --- 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Purnea Division, Purnea. 6. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Magadh Division, Gaya. 7. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Saharsa Division, Saharsa. 8. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Purnea. ……Respondents …. Appellants. Versus 1. Sanjay Kumar, son of Shri Suresh Paswan, resident of village Khajuri, P.O.:Karpi, District: Jehanabad. 2. Narendra Paswan, son of Ram Kumar Paswan, resident of village: Paharpur, P.O.Anisabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna. ----------- For the appellants : Mr.Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha, Government Pleader III, M/s Sanjay Prasad & Sunita Kumari Junior counsel to Government Pleader III ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 28th November, 2008. Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of fifty seven days for which an application (I.A.No.7012/2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, we find that the - 2 - appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “It is submitted that the petitioners came to be appointed on 24.10.1991 and 3.7.1991 by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Gaya in pursuance of powers conferred on him to make ad-hoc appointment on Class III posts. Subsequently the issue was re- examined by the Government when instructions were issued by order dated 1.11.1996 with regard to the illegality of such appointments made by the Regional Directors on Class III posts after 21.2.1992 in pursuance of a government instruction dated 16.4.1996 bearing no. 2084. That the petitioners who were appointed subsequent to the cut off date fell out of the purview of the aforesaid order. Nonetheless based on the aforesaid instruction the services of the petitioners have been terminated also. In similar circumstances certain others came to this Court in CWJC No. 5140 of 1998 whose orders of termination were set aside and which came to be affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 325 of 2000. Additionally in CWJC No. 7816 of 2001 similar orders of termination came to be set aside affirmed by the Division Bench reported in 2007(3) PLJR 567. Counsel for the State urged that the appointments were illegal. They were made without authority and no procedures were followed in these appointments. That therefore the impugned order of termination required no interference. In CWJC No. 5140 of 1998 similar arguments were advanced that illegal appointments had been made by Regional Director without following the procedure, even in absence of vacant posts. The petitioners therein, like the present petitioners, were initially appointed on daily wages when they were regularized by fresh appointment. This Court therein also noticed that their appointment was prior to the cut of date 21.10.1991 in so far as Class IV employees are concerned when in the present case the cut of date for Class III employees has been fixed as 21.2.1992. In that background the Court held that the order of termination was based on non-est ground. Relief was therefore granted to the extent that the appointment had been made prior to the cut of date. This order having been affirmed by the Division Bench binds this Court.” - 3 - Likewise, in CWJC No. 7816 of 2001 the same issue with regard to the cut of date and appointments made prior to that date came up for consideration when this Court held that the appointment having been made prior to the cut of date in the same Department the order of termination was not sustainable which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench binds this Court. In view of the relief having been granted in more than one writ petition considering similar issues as raised herein this writ application has to be allowed. At this stage, learned Counsel for the State sought to persuade this Court with regard to the illegality of the appointment of petitioner no. 2 on certain other grounds not even urged in the counter affidavit. This Court for the purpose can do no better than rely upon the observations in CWJC No. 5140 of 1998 holding that even by filing a counter affidavit they could not be allowed to include more grounds than that mentioned in the order.”. 3. The Single Judge seems to have followed the decision of this Court in CWJC No.5140/1998. We wanted the government counsel to show us as to how the decision given by this court in CWJC No.5140 of 1998 was not applicable to the present fact – situation. Despite our repeated query, he could not show anything in this regard. 4. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted; it is dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A.No.7012/2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil