IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1588 of 2009 ---- Urmila Devi, wife of Shri Bhagwan Lal Singh, resident of Village-Harna, P.S.-Dariyapur, District-Chapra (at present the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Harna, Dariyapur, Chapra. --Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran. 4. The District Magistrate, Saran. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saran. 6. The District Education Officer, Saran. 7. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-Co- ordinator Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Saran. 8. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saran. 9. The Executive Magistrate-Cum-Senior Incharge Officer, Dariapur Block, Chapra. 10. The Block Development Officer, Dariapur Block, Chapra. 11. The Block Statical Officer, Dariapur Block, Chapra. 12. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dariapur, Chapra. 13. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Harna, Dariapur, Chapra. 14. Sri Basant Lal Ram, the then Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Harna, Dariapur, Chapra. 15. Savita Kumari, daughter of Chandrika Prasad, resident of Village- Banwaripur, Post-Jalipur, P.S.-Dariyapur, District-Saran. 16. Ajay Kumar Ram, son of Shiv Nath Ram, resident of Village-Saguni, Post-Shrirampur, P.S. –Parasa, District- Saran. 17. Md. Nasir Ali, son of Md. Salamatullah Ansari, resident of Village-Sarai Saho, Post-Parsa, P.S.-Dariyapur, District-Saran. Respondents. ------- - 2 - For the appellant : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Nividita Nirvikar, Government Pleader-XVI. ----- 03. 18/01/2010 I.A.no.8313 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 18 days in preferring the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel for the State. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay and, accordingly, it is so ordered. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.1588 of 2009 4. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In this appeal, assail to the order is dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.17892 of 2008 and other connected matters where she was the respondent. - 3 - 6. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is perceptible that she has allowed the writ petitions on two grounds, namely an inquiry was held behind the back of the selected candidates and second, the Block Development officer, who has exercised the jurisdiction, has no jurisdiction as the concerned Rule has come into force in October, 2008 vesting the power for examination and scrutiny in the appellate tribunal. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that when the appellate authority has come into existence, the Block Development Officer could not have entertained the controversy and, accordingly, the order passed by him is without jurisdiction. On that ground the order passed by the learned Single Judge is sustained and the appeal preferred by the appellant stands dismissed in limine. Sunil (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)