JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The respondent no.1 has not appeared inspite of service of notice. The appellants, being the State and its officers are aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 21.06.2013 in W.P.(S) No. 1727 of 2005 whereby the writ application filed by the sole respondent challenging the termination of her service has been allowed by Hon’ble Single Judge directing the respondent- State, i.e. appellant herein, to reinstate the respondent-petitioner on the post of English Teacher from the date on which the order of termination was passed giving arrears of salary as back wages. 3. The case of the writ petitioner, as depicts from the impugned judgment, is that the petitioner was working as an English Teacher and had got training certificate of Siksha Visharad (Teachers Training) course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The service of the writ petitioner was terminated on the ground that the said certificate was not equivalent to B.Ed. The impugned order, however, shows that before issuing the termination order, no notice was given to the petitioner and on that ground alone, the service of the petitioner has been terminated. 4. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge setting aside the order of termination which was passed without notice. 5. We also find from the records that I.A. No. 1174 of 2015 has been filed for condonation of inordinate delay of 578 days. Another I.A. No. 1173 of 2015 has been filed for staying the operation of the impugned order. 6. In the interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay, it is only stated that after the writ petitioner filed representation for her reinstatement with the copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, it was felt that this order could be challenged and a letter was written to the Director Secondary Education which was followed by reminders, but no action was taken thereafter. 7. We do not find that sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay of 578 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, I.A. No. 1174 of 2015 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 8. 7. We do not find that sufficient ground has been made out for condonation of delay of 578 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, I.A. No. 1174 of 2015 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed. 8. We chose to address the appellants’ case on merit also, as we wanted to ascertain as to whether the appellant has a good case to pursue while testing their plea for condonation of delay. Our opinion is in the negative on that count, as we have already expressed. I.A. No. 1173 of 2015 for staying the impugned order also stands dismissed, as the main appeal has been dismissed. 9. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.