IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1418 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6884 OF 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.7971 OF 2010 ============================================ RAMAYAN YADAV - Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondent(s) ============================================ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee For the Respondent : Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad,AC to GP 4 ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 08.9.2010. Reg: I.A.No.7971 of 2010. This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is made for condonation of the delay of 9 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Reg: Letters Patent Appeal No.1418 of 2010. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.6884 of 2 2009. One Deo Narayan Pathak the respondent no.6 herein filed the above C.W.J.c.No.6884 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the appointment of the respondent no.5 Lalita Kumari as Headmistress of Project Kasturwa Girls High School, Panjwar, Siwan. In the said writ petition, the present appellant was impleaded as respondent no.6. The learned Single Judge recorded the rival contentions. It is observed, “xxx Admittedly, this is a girls high school and the Government policy also envisages manning of the said post by the ladies.” Having observed thus, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere. However, considering the plight of the writ petitioner as he had to work under a junior, he was allowed to seek transfer from the said project school. The concerned authority was directed to consider the representation that may be made by the writ petitioner. Subject to the aforesaid observation the petition was disposed of. The respondent no.6 has now approached this Court in Letters Patent Appeal. The grievance of the respondent no.6 is that no observation has been made in his respect as was made in respect of the writ petitioner. 3 We are unable to comprehend the cause of action. It may be noted that the appellant herein was not the writ petitioner nor did he challenge the appointment of Lalita Kumari, as Headmistress. In a petition filed by the respondent no.6, the appellant could not have expected any relief. In our opinion, no prejudice is caused to the appellant. The appeal is misconceived. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ahk (R. M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)