JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 3480 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay. 2. We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6. 3. Regard being had to the assertions made and the grounds urged, we are of the considered opinion, sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. 4. I.A. is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No. 668 of 2010 5. As we have condoned delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties it is finally heard. 6. The writ petitioners, respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein invoked jurisdiction of this Court for many a relief which included that they should be appointed on the post of District Project Manager in Women Development Corporation, Bihar. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 5 has held thus: "Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the counter affidavit, it is evident that the appointment in terms of Advertisement (Annexure-1) has been made for a period of one year out of which eight months have already passed. In the meantime, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the two submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the parties, I direct the Corporation authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against the three vacant posts in the unreserved category as petitioners are amongst the five candidates who have secured 63 marks in aggregate. Consideration of the case of the petitioners by the Corporation in compliance of this order be made with an open mind without being prejudiced by this order within a reasonable time not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a copy of this order. It is however directed that the appointment made in terms of the Advertisement (Annexure-1) should not be allowed to continue beyond one year. The Corporation while conducting the appointment process in future should not allocate marks beyond 12.2% of the marks allocated for written test." 7. It is however directed that the appointment made in terms of the Advertisement (Annexure-1) should not be allowed to continue beyond one year. The Corporation while conducting the appointment process in future should not allocate marks beyond 12.2% of the marks allocated for written test." 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the advertisement did not stipulate that the appointment would be for one year. It is contended by him that the letter of appointment lays and postulate that the terms of appointees can be renewed. It is urged by him, the learned Single Judge has curtailed said right by saying that they cannot be allowed to continue beyond one year. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and regard being had to the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the letter of appointment, we are inclined to modify the order of the learned Single Judge by stating that the cases of the present appellants can be considered for renewal in terms of letter of appointment. 9. Needless to emphasize, such consideration can also be done in respect of respondent nos. 5 and 6 as they have been appointed in the meantime. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs.