AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In terms of the order and direction passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14838 of 2008 dated 09.08.2012, the time frame fixed to hold a fresh counselling within two month has already been carried out and implemented as is the stand of the counsel representing the private respondent No.10.
This position is not controverted because learned senior Patna High Court LPA No.1125 of 2013 dt.09-01-2017 counsel representing the appellant does not have the inputs about the same.
Since the order of the learned single Judge was passed way back on 09.08.2012, the Court is informed that even the contempt application came to be filed for non-compliance, which was MJC No. 1594 of 2013, the stand of the private respondents seems to be correct.
Since the fresh decision for appointment in favour of the private respondent has already been taken, the argument being made against the order of the learned single Judge has lost its meaning and remains academic.
It is left open to the appellant now to may be assail the appointment of the private respondent. No order is required to be passed in the Letters Patent Appeal interfering with the impugned decision.
Appeal is dismissed.