Judgment 1. The aspect that the learned Judge declined to interfere in a bunch of writ petitions which were pending consideration before him is not a matter which is connected with the case of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Amar Prakash did not appear. Instead, submissions were made by a lawyer holding his brief, Mr. Jyoti Shankar Mishra Advocate, and he was heard. 3. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, no aspect of the judgment aggrieves him. Certain persons connected with the Government or in a fiduciary capacity with it, were restrained from joining the fray to elections to grassroot democracy; in the present case municipal elections. The petitioner at the time when he filed his nomination papers was holding the position of an Additional Public Prosecutor, Government of Bihar. The petitioner was conscious of the disability, preventing him from contesting elections to municipalities. The issue before the Court is not whether an Additional Public Prosecutor can stand to elections to a Ward of a Municipality or a Nagar Panchayat. 4. In so far as the petitioners case is concerned, he was in no uncertain terms and beyond reasonable doubt conscious and aware that there is an impediment that if he was holding a post or an assignment connected with the Government, he is in a position of disability. This aspect is on record. The nomination papers were to be filed on or before 8 March, 2002. The petitioner filed his nomination paper before this date for Ward No. 8. His nomination paper was rejected. This was on 11 March, 2002. The petitioner was trying to impress upon the Returning Officer that he had tendered his resignation on that day. The Returning Officer has recorded "Inke Dwara Sanwiksha ke din (11.3.2002) ko. lok abhiyojak pad se tyagpatra sambandhi awedap ki chaya prati di gai hai". 5. At the time when the petitioner filed the nomination papers, the Returning Officer had taken the record as showing that the petitioner was holding the post of an Additional Public Prosecutor, Government of Bihar. Thus, the nomination paper was rejected. If the petitioner did not desire this complication then he should have ensured that this resignation was prior to the date of filing the nomination paper that is 8 March, 2002. 6. Thus, the nomination paper was rejected. If the petitioner did not desire this complication then he should have ensured that this resignation was prior to the date of filing the nomination paper that is 8 March, 2002. 6. In the circumstances, the issue does not survive for consideration of the Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Dismissed.