ORDER :

1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or visual quality.

I.A. No. 1096 of 2021

2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 1044 days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted by referring to the ground taken in the instant delay condonation application to condone the delay since sufficient cause has been shown therein.

It has been submitted that since the appellant-writ petitioner is unemployed, sufficient time has been consumed in arranging the money to be incurred in filing the instant appeal.

It has further been submitted that the writ petitioner has got good case on merit and, therefore, the instant appeal may not be dismissed on limitation, rather, it may be heard on merit.

4. No counter affidavit, to the instant delay condonation application, has been filed. However, oral objection has been made on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand to reject the instant delay condonation application.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons, this Court deems it fit and proper to condone the delay so that the matter may be heard on merit.

6. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

7. The instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1096 of 2021 is allowed.

L.P.A. No. 415 of 2020

8. Learned counsel for the parties have consented for hearing the appeal on merit and as such, the same has been heard on merit.

9. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 60 of 2016 with W.P. (S) No. 82 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to pass positive direction by directing the respondent State of Jharkhand to relax the cut-off date fixed in “the advertisement” for consideration of candidature of one or the other candidates.

10. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner made an application for consideration of his candidature in pursuance to the advertisement published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred as the “Commission” being Advertisement No. 03/2015 for the post of Jharkhand Agriculture Service Class-II (Basic Category) (Assistant Agriculture Director/ Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer and equivalent post). In the advertisement, the cut-off date has been provided as on 01.08.2014 as age limit of different categories of candidates. The writ petitioner has crossed the upper age limit as per the cut-off date 01.08.2014 provided in the advertisement.

The writ petitioner, therefore, has raised his grievance for relaxation of the cut-off date so that he would get an opportunity to appear in the examination.

The ground was taken before the learned Single Judge that the advertisement has been issued after a long gap of 25 years and, as such, no appointment, on the said post, has been made either in the erstwhile State of Bihar or even after creation of the State of Jharkhand since the year 1989.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the day when the advertisement being Advertisement No. 03/2015 was issued, the writ petitioner had crossed his maximum age and as such, for no fault of his own, he has been deprived from participating in the process of selection.

The ground has been taken on behalf of the Commission to the effect that the petitioner has crossed the age limit as per the cut-off date given in the advertisement, therefore, he cannot be permitted to claim for relaxation of the age.

According to the Commission, the upper age limit on the basis of the cut-off date was 01.08.2014, but by way of corrigendum, the same has been relaxed to 01.08.2010 and even then the writ petition