JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. - I.A. No. 7355 of 2016 in L.P.A. No. 285 of 2016 This application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 25.07.2016. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 8 submits that delay in filing this Letters Patent Appeal has been condoned without hearing these respondents. 3. The learned counsel refers to a decision in "Ram Lal Kapur and Sons (P) Ltd. vs. Ram Nath and Others" reported in (1963) 2 SCR 242 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 9. "Nevertheless, we consider that we should add that, except in very rare cases, if not invariably, it should be proper that this Court should adopt as a settled rule that the delay in making an application for special leave should not be condoned ex parte but that before granting leave in such cases notice should be served on the respondent and the latter afforded an opportunity to resist the grant of the leave. Such a course besides being just, would be preferable to having to decide applications for revoking leave on the ground that the delay in making the same was improperly condoned years after the grant of the leave when the Court naturally feels embarrassed by the injustice which would be caused to the appellant if leave were then revoked when he would be deprived of the opportunity of pursuing other remedies if leave had been refused earlier. We would suggest that the rules of the Court should be amended suitably to achieve this purpose." 4. By now it is well-settled that a statutory appeal should be heard on merits and not dismissed on technicalities. Condonation of delay in filing a petition is a matter pertaining to discretion of the Court. Unless it is shown that the exercise of discretion by the Court is patently illegal, no interference is required with exercise of discretion by the Court. Moreover, order passed by a coordinate Bench condoning the delay cannot be recalled by another coordinate Bench. Primarily, such matters pertain to propriety and judicial discipline. 5. Finding no merit in this application, I.A. No. 7355 of 2016 is dismissed. L.P.A. Nos. 285, 309, 314, 319, 382, 492 of 2016 6. In a batch of writ petitions a dispute on inter-se seniority of the writ petitioners and the private respondents was adjudicated by the learned writ Court. Primarily, such matters pertain to propriety and judicial discipline. 5. Finding no merit in this application, I.A. No. 7355 of 2016 is dismissed. L.P.A. Nos. 285, 309, 314, 319, 382, 492 of 2016 6. In a batch of writ petitions a dispute on inter-se seniority of the writ petitioners and the private respondents was adjudicated by the learned writ Court. As many as six Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2543 of 2012 and batch cases. 7. In L.P.A. No. 285 of 2016, no one appears on behalf of the appellants. It is stated that Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel who has filed this Letters Patent Appeal has assumed charge of Additional Advocate-General for the Government of Jharkhand. In the Letters Patent Appeals which are listed at item nos. 3, 4 and 5, a prayer for adjournment is made on behalf of Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel who has also assumed charge of Government Advocate. 8. In L.P.A. No. 382 of 2016, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appears for the appellants and submits that an identical issue has now been authoritatively decided by a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in "Nand Kumar Manjhi & Anr. etc. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. etc." [Civil Appeal Nos. 4020-4022 of 2019]. 9. The learned Senior counsel tenders a copy of the said judgment. 10. Taken on record. 11. In L.P.A. No. 492 of 2016, Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel states that he has instruction to appear on behalf of the appellants. 12. It appears that all the respondents in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals have not been served. 13. The appellants shall take out dasti notices and file an affidavit on service of notice upon remaining respondents. 14. Post these matters on 26.06.2019 under the heading "For Orders". 15. In the meantime, the appellants shall complete the pleadings and file the entire writ court''s records in separate paper-books. 16. The respondents who have been served may file their response in the meantime.