- (1.) THOUGH the matter was listed for consideration of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but this Court noticed that there were 51 Respondents and as per the prayer of the Petitioners -Appellants, the names of the Respondent Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 36, 38, 41, 43 and 48 have been deleted against these persons, no relief survives because of the subsequent development and the petition of the Petitioners -Appellants was dismissed on the ground of delay as the learned Single Judge has observed that the Petitioners -Appellants are challenging the cause, which arose 16 -21 years before they filed the writ petition. Therefore, this Court was of the view that instead of sending notice for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it may be examined whether the cause survives or not due to the subsequent development on account of issue of Final Seniority List of the employees by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. Therefore the parties were directed to address the Court afresh on the merit of the case. This Court was of the opinion that the Advocate General should assist the Court and therefore, On 16.5.2011 directed the Advocate General to assist the Court.
(2.) THE learned Advocate General who appeared in this petition on 7.6.2011 on behalf of the Respondents, drew our attention to the fact that he was the counsel for the writ Petitioners in the earlier litigation. However, this Court was of the view that presently we are on the question of law only. Therefore, we directed the learned Advocate General to assist this Court and learned Advocate General very fairly without taking any side assisted the Court on the question of law by drew our attention to judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sinha -II v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : 2004 (10) SCC 734. The said judgment has been referred before the learned Single judge and on - the basis of that judgment, direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to the State to follow the decisions given in the Sanjay Kumar Sinha -II's case (Supra). 3 Heard the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Advocate General. 4. Order is reserved.;