S.P. Srivastava, J.

The appellant, who had not been impleaded as a party-respondent in Writ Petition No. 2277 of 1997, has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereunder allowing the writ petition filed by Himmatsingh Kaurav, the respondent No. 1, which was directed against the order dated 5-10-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer whereby the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 28-11-1995 in regard to the appointment of the aforesaid respondent had been set aside with a direction to re-advertise the post inviting applications for appointment and filling the vacancy in the post of Panchayat-Karmi in accordance with law.

1A. The learned single Judge vide the impugned order while quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 5-10-1996 had directed the Janpad Panchayat to consider in the light of the directions contained in the final order disposing of writ petition No. 200/96 as to whether any other person could be posted at Gram Panchayat, Lahar, when Himmatsingh Kaurav had already been appointed as a Panchayat-Karmi.

The appellant has prayed for the setting aside or modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge claiming that he was also the prospective applicant for the post in question and has been seriously prejudiced on account of he being deprived of the opportunity for being considered for the appointment on the post of Panchayat-Karmi.

The order of the learned single Judge, which is impugned in the appeal had been passed on 15-7-1997. The present appeal had been presented on 27-8-1997 beyond the prescribed period of limitation. I.A. No. 6166/97 had been filed praying for the leave to file appeal and I.A. No. 6167/97 had been filed seeking condonation of delay in the presentation of the appeal.

This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide the order of this Court dated 14-10-1997. On 6-1-1998 the Division Bench had passed an order for listing the appeal for hearing along with the records of Writ Petition No. 11/96 decided on 10-1-1996 and Writ Petition No. 200/96 decided on 23-1-1996.

This application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was objected to vide the reply dated 5-9-1997 filed by Himmatsingh. Although, the application I.A. No. 6167/97 had duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant no counter affidavit denying or controverting the allegations made therein had been filed. Even the reply filed by Himmatsing dated 5-9-1997 is not supported by an affidavit. It may further be noticed that no counter-affidavit in opposition to I.A. No. 6166/97 seeking leave to file the appeal had been filed by the contesting respondents.

The delay in filing the appeal is reported to be 14 days only. In spite of the notice having been issued vide the order dated 2-9-1997 no effort was made by the contesting respondent to file counter-affidavit in opposition to I.As. No. 6166/97 and 6167/97. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide the order dated 14-10-1997. Even at that stage no objection to either the grant of leave or for condoning the delay in filing the appeal appears to have been urged or pressed. Hearing of this appeal had been expedited on 6-1-1998 and the State had been directed to produce record of the proceedings in which the impugned order has been passed. The hearing of the appeal, as noticed in the order dated 4-5-1999 had been expedited at the instance of the contesting respondent. Even on 29-7-1999 when the appeal was finally heard no objection had been raised to the aforesaid applications.

Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record the leave for filing the appeal is granted and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents on merits and have also carefully perused the records.

The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narro