Aniruddha Bose, J.

This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal.

We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.

We, accordingly, condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal.

I.A. No. 11510 of 2018 stands disposed of.

L. P. A. No. 756 of 2018

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants, 36 individuals in total, had participated in a State-wide selection process for appointment of Assistant Teachers in different Government Primary Schools. The selection process was initiated by an advertisement dated 29th August, 2002, entitled “Primary Trained Teachers Recruitment Exam, 2002”. Though in the memorandum of appeal this date is not mentioned, learned Advocates appearing for the parties have confirmed in course of hearing this date to be the date of advertisement. After publication of the advertisement, examination was held and on that basis panel was prepared and published for the candidates who had crossed the benchmark eligibility criteria. For the Giridih division, 483 candidates were declared successful. The appellants did not figure in that list. Appointment letters to successful candidates started to be issued from that list on and from 22nd January, 2004. There were complaints however that several candidates featuring in that list were ineligible. Subsequently, appointments of 212 of such candidates were cancelled on the ground of them being ineligible. This necessitated fresh appointments and second list of successful candidates was published on 18th August, 2005.

3. The present appeal arises out of dispute over the dates of appointment of selected candidates in the district of Giridih. Admitted position is that for the district of Giridih, initial merit list did not contain the names of the appellants, from whose writ petition this appeal originates. Their names did not appear as successful candidates because they did not initially fulfill the stipulated criteria so far as qualifying marks in the selection process is concerned. Some of those ineligible candidates whose appointments were cancelled had approached this Court questioning their exclusion but by a judgment delivered on 30th March, 2005 a Coordinate Bench of this Court sustained the action of the authorities in deleting their names from the merit list. Several appeals were disposed of by the judgment, the lead appeal being L.P.A. No. 246 of 2004 (Sumanata Kumar Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others). After deletion of the names of such ineligible candidates, another list was prepared on the basis of the marks allocated in the selection process undertaken in the year 2003. The appellants’ names appeared in the list published in August, 2005. We shall henceforth refer to this list as the second list. The appellants were eventually issued appointment letters upon selection and they joined their respective allocated primary schools.

4. In the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, main prayer of the writ petitioners was for a direction upon the respondents to confer upon them presumptive appointments with effect from 22nd January, 2004. It appears that other selected candidates whose names had appeared in the first list have been given appointment letters on that date. There are certain other ancillary reliefs which were prayed for in the writ petition but we need not reproduce the same over here, as in the event the appellants succeed in obtaining the main relief, other reliefs would broadly follow.

5. There are three decisions which have been cited before us by the appellants in which for the districts of Dhanbad, Chaibasa and Godda, the candidates who were appointed at a later date were given notional appointment by shifting their date of initial appointments to make them at par with other regular candidates. The first decision in this line of cases was deliver