The court upheld the single Judge's decision, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedent and the binding nature of prior rulings agreed upon by parties.

JUDGMENT :

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)

I.A. No.02 of 2020

The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 411 days caused in preferring the Appeal.

2. Heard Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have also perused the averments made in the Memo. of Application. We are of the view that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for not preferring the LPA within the period of limitation. Accordingly, delay of 411 days caused in preferring the LPA is hereby condoned.

4. The present interlocutory application stands allowed.

Re:-LPA No.213 of 2020.

5. The appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Patna High Court Rules against the order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.24814 of 2018.

6. Heard Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants-State would mainly contend that the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order simply relying upon the order passed by another learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7504 of 2013 whereby the another learned single Judge has allowed the petition. It has been observed by the learned single Judge that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the said order. However, learned counsel for the appellants referred the averments made in the Memo of LPA and, thereafter, pointed out that the original writ petitioner obtained the degree from Soghra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda which was not affiliated with Magadh University. The degree was obtained by the original petitioner in the year 1987. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that the similar issue arose in C.W.J.C. No.4560 of 2007 where the concerned writ petitioners preferred the writ petition with a grievance that once they had been issued the provisional mark sheets and a certificate in the year 1990 by Magadh University, it was the duty of the concerned authority to include the name of the college in the context of eligibility of the candidates holding B.Ed. degree for the post of teacher. In the said case, the same college was not affiliated with the University and, therefore, the writ petition was preferred. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 24.10.2011 against which the State preferred LPA No.1241 of 2014. It is contended that vide order dated 19.05.2015, the Division Bench of this Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and, thereby, the direction issued by the learned single Judge to include the name of the aforesaid college in the list of Institutions was set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, urged that though the aforesaid order was passed by the Division Bench, the learned single Judge, in the present case, relying upon another order passed in a different writ petition, allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent/original petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present LPA be allowed and, thereby, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge be quashed and set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the present opponent/original petitioner has opposed the present Appeal. Learned counsel for the opponent mainly submitted that the learned single Judge, in the present case, has specifically observed that the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the present case is covered by the judgment dated 29.02.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7504 of 2013 especially, on account of the fact that the case of the respondent herein has also received a stamp of approval by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel submits that once