JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred to assail correctness of the order dated 9.9.2013 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3159/2008 (Lalit Singh Akhawat v. State of Rajathan & Ors.) . The appeal is barred by limitation from 86 days. An application is preferred to have condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn-in by the Officer Incharge of the case. 2. As per the appellant, the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to certain administrative reasons. 3. Having considered the same, we are inclined to accept the application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The delay of 86 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Heard and examined merits of the case. 5. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-respondent conducted a competitive test in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1957') for the purpose of appointment to the post of Patwari. The respondent petitioner participated in the test aforesaid and was declared qualified. He was sent for training relating to the post concern, however, appointment was not accorded to him by the appellant respondent. In the year 2001, a First Information Report No.87/2001 was lodged at Police Station, Bhopalpura, District Udaipur with the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Sections 419 and 109 I.P.C. by the respondent-petitioner while facing the competitive test conducted for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Patwari. In the FIR aforesaid, after necessary investigation the respondent-petitioner was charge-sheeted and he was tried by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No.2, Udaipur (South), Udaipur. The trial court by its judgment dated 13.6.2005 acquitted the respondent-petitioner by extending benefit of doubt. After acquittal, the respondent petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to accord him appointment as Patwari but of no consequence. He also served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel calling upon the respondents to provide appointment to him as Patwari. No response was given to the notice referred above. He then approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. 6. He also served a notice for demand of justice through his counsel calling upon the respondents to provide appointment to him as Patwari. No response was given to the notice referred above. He then approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. 6. In appeal, the submission made on behalf of the appellant respondent is that the respondent-petitioner used unfair means inasmuch as somebody else appeared on his behalf in the competitive test, therefore, no direction could have been given by the learned Single Bench for his appointment as Patwari. 7. Having considered all facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. 8. Suffice to mention that at the first instance FIR was lodged by the appellant-respondent in the year 2001 with regard to the offence that was said to be committed in the year 1995. Be that as it may, the allegation of using unfair means was subject matter of a criminal trial that ultimately resulted in favour of the respondent petitioner. As a matter of fact, no material is available to rely upon the factual aspect advanced on behalf of the appellant. It is also relevant to mention that Rule 4 of the Rules of 1957 empowers the employer for not providing appointment if a person is found involved in a case having moral turpitude. In the case in hand, though, the allegation pertains to case involving moral turpitude but that has not been established, as such, the appellants cannot bank upon the Rule aforesaid too. 9. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same, therefore, is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the term "appointment on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits" as mentioned in operative petition of the judgment impugned is to be treated as "appointment on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits on notional basis".Appeal dismissed. *******