IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.726 of 2008 BACHHA NATH JHA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.S.Mishra, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate-V ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 17th September, 2008. This letters patent appeal suffers from delay of 44 days. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal for the cause shown in the application (I.A. No. 5746 of 2008), in our considered view, appeal is devoid of any substance and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. That the appellants are neither graduate nor they hold diploma in physical education is an admitted position. In that view of the matter, the appellants (petitioners therein) cannot be treated as trained teacher. As a matter of fact Annexure-2/1 annexed with the writ petition upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant says that every recognized school should have one graduate holding a diploma in physical education. Paragraph 1 and 2 of the communication dated 27th May, 1955 (Annexure-2/1) reads thus: - - 2 - “Every recognized high school should have one graduate holding a diploma in physical education, in addition to the two minimum number of posts of trained graduates. For the present there will be no objection to their post being one of the minus seven posts of graduate teachers in the school, but gradually every school should endeavour to create an additional post of assistant master for physical education, and health. This teacher will be incharge of physical education, boy-scouting, Health Nutrition, etc. and will also teach any other subject, which he may be qualified to teach. 2. That a graduate holding a diploma in physical education should be treated as a trained graduate in the matter of salary and emoluments.” 3. In view thereof, consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. 4. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. 5. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 5746 of 2008) as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-