- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.3.2003, Passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (S) No. 4554 of 2001. The limitation for filing the appeal expired on 15.4.2003, whereas it was filed on 22.4.2003. Hence, IA No. 1079 of 2003 at flag 'L ' has been filed for condonation of the said delay in filing the appeal. After hearing the parties and perusing the I.A at flag 'L ' we find that the aforesaid seven days ' delay has been properly explained and as such the delay is hereby condoned. Another LA. No. 1078 of 2003 has also been filed by the appellant for addition of Sri Kamlesh Kumar, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dumka as party -respondent in this appeal. Though the appellant had challenged the promotion of Sri Kumar to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the year 1992 in the writ petition, but he was not made a party therein. In such circumstance, the prayer to add Shri Kamlesh Kumar in this appeal as party respondent is rejected at this stage.
(2.) THE appellant as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar were scheduled caste candidates and were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1992, but only Shri Kamlesh Kumar was promoted on 12.5.1992. The appellant filed representation. In the year 1995 he was again superseded and several other junior to him were promoted. The appellant filed another representation and after a lapse of about nine years filed the aforesaid WP (S) No. 4554 of 2001 in this Court, which was heard and disposed of by the impugned order dated 12.3.2003, by the learned Single Judge with a direction to consider his case for promotion, including the time bound promotion, by the committee/respondents in accordance with law, on its own merit, without being prejudiced by the observations made in the said order with regard to the promotions given to others on 8.11.1995. In our opinion, so far as the appellant 'sclaim regarding the promotion given in the year 1992 is concerned, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the writ petition was filed in September, 2001, i.e. after nine years and that also without impleading the said Kamlesh Kumar as party - respondent therein. Though the writ petitioner claimed to have been pursuing the matter by filing representations, but no copy of any such representation was brought on the record. In our opinion the learned Single Judge rightly observed "I am not inclined to hold that the promotion of Shri Kamlesh Kumar was made against rules of promotion." So far as the appellant 'ssupersession in the year 1995 promotion is concerned, in view of the direction given by the learned Single Judge for consideration of his case by the committee as well as the other directions given to the respondents, we find that the appellant had no reason to file the present appeal and challenge the said part of the impugned direction/order. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ;