The challenge to appointments made 16 to 21 years back was not maintainable due to settled Supreme Court decision and delay. The relief sought regarding the final seniority list had already been granted, and any further grievances would constitute a separate cause of action.

Prakash Tatia, Act.C.J., J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred to challenge the order dated 14th July,2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6629 of 2005( Arvind Kumar and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.), by which the writ petition of the Petitioner to challenge the order of promotion/appointment of some of the Respondents issued vide Notification No. 5775 dated 14th December, 1987 as also the orders of appointment of other Respondents, which were issued vide Notification Nos. 1671 dated 13th April, 1988 and 5001 dated 10th August, 1989, has been dismissed after observing that the Petitioners are challenging the promotion and/or appointment of the Respondents and others issued 16 to 21 years back, and so far as issue of seniority is concerned, the matter having been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Sanjay K. Sinha-II v. State of Bihar, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 734, no further order is required to be given. The learned Single Judge also observed that the State Government is supposed to act in terms with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sanjay K. Sinha-II (supra) and if provisional gradation list dated 30th November, 2004 has been issued in violation of the the Supreme Court's order and that has been brought to the notice of the authorities by the Petitioners, the State Government is required to decide such objection expeditiously. The learned Single Judge further observed that it is expected that the State Government will finalize the seniority list preferably within four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order passed by the High Court.

2. Aggrieved with the above order dated 14th July, 2006, the Appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. This Court on 16th May, 2011 found that in the present Letters Patent Appeal only notices for application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were issued as the appeal was preferred after delay of 107 days and since the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 14th July,2006 directed the State to take some decision in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in Sanjay K. Sinha-II's case, therefore, it was found proper to look into the merit of the case without service of the notice for condonation of delay upon the other Respondents because if subsequent development has rendered this appeal infructuous then there is no need to issue notice to the unserved Respondents. The learned Advocate General was requested to assist the Court in the matter upon which the learned Advocate General pointed out that he was counsel for the writ Petitioners in earlier writ petition and after taking notice of that fact this Court requested the learned Advocate General to assist the Court only to address on the back ground of the case and pursuant thereto the learned Advocate General brought to our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sanjay K. Sinha-II(supra) only, which judgment has already been considered by the learned Single Judge. However, we have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants at length on the question whether the present Letters Patent Appeal has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent event or not.

4. It will be appropriate to recapitulate the facts of the case. The writ Petitioners have challenged the appointment of the Respondent Nos. 9 and 10, who were appointed on the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests, by competing in competitive examination in the year, 1985 and were appointed vide notification No. 5775 dated 14th December, 1987, which appointment, according to the Petitioners, were given beyond the advertised seventeen vacancies for general candidates and for quashing the appointment of ten candidates, namely, Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 and Respondent Nos. 14 to 20, whose appointment were made in two phases vide notification No. 1671 dated 13th April, 1988 and vide notificat