JUDGMENT 1. - Matter has been listed from the defect side. There is a delay of 103 days in filing of the appeal. The appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. We have considered the grounds mentioned in the application. 3. In the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the said application, as we find that there was sufficient cause, which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.Let the appeal be registered. 5. With the consent of both the parties, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the submissions made in the appeal. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-respondent pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2007 has already joined her duties, as P.T.I. Grade-III vide order dated 05.03.2008. 7. We have examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We find that the learned Single Judge after having taken into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances held that the petitioner was discriminated and her candidature for appointment as P.T.I. Grade-III against Girls Institution was not considered. The direction, which has been given by the learned Single Judge is also in accordance with law, as the learned Single Judge has taken care to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against a suitable vacancies, as per her merit, as P.T.I. Grade-III in the Girls Institution. After the said direction was issued the appellants have considered the case of the respondent and given her the appointment. On account of pendency, the learned Single Judge has not awarded the arrears of salary and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has taken care to even protect the interest of the appellant.We find no merit in the appeal. 9. Resultantly, the appeal as well as the stay application are, dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******