JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 2829 of 2015 Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 04 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay. 3. In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2829 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 10 of 2014 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21st November, 2013 passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2013, whereby petition preferred by this appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant had applied for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance of Public Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. He appeared in physical tests and was found fit. His height was measured 179 cms and again when it was re-measured it was found 177cms. This difference in measurement has resulted in reduction of the total marks he got because in the said selection process certain marks were allotted for the hight of a candidate also and as this original petitioner could not secure 18 marks, he was not appointed and had the height of this petitioner rightly measured, he would have been appointed on the post of constable. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2013. deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the appellant is also relying upon the decisions of this court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5041 of 2010 reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 527 and W.P.(S) No. 2917 of 2010 reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 527 . 6. Counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred by this appellant at a much belated stage. Public Advertisement is of the year 2004. 6. Counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the writ petition has been preferred by this appellant at a much belated stage. Public Advertisement is of the year 2004. By the time the writ petition was filed the process of appointment pertaining to that advertisement was over and the appointees are working and this court can never re-shuffle the selection list already published and operated upon by the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, the factual aspect involved in this matter as to whether the height of the appellant has been measured correctly by the State of Jharkhand can not be decided by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition preferred by this appellant no such allegation was levelled by this appellant about the malafide of a particular officer of the State regarding measurement of height, hence, there is no reason for this court not to accept the measurement of height made by the State. Even otherwise also, now no mark has been allotted for the height as per latest amendment in the police manual. 7. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed mainly for the following facts and reasons: (I) State of Jharkhand published Public Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Constable in the State of Jharkhand. This appellant-original petitioner applied for the post of constable and had appeared in several tests including physical test. As per the Jharkhand State Police Manual, at the relevant time, certain marks were allotted to the height of the candidates. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that he had measured his height as 179 c.m., while State has measured it as 177 c.m. and due to this wrong measurement of his height by the State, his total marks had been reduced and he was not appointed. It appears that this appellant has not alleged any malafide intention on the part of any particular officer of the State regarding measurement of his height and therefore, there is no reason for this court not to accept the measurement made by the impartial officers of the State. It appears that this appellant has not alleged any malafide intention on the part of any particular officer of the State regarding measurement of his height and therefore, there is no reason for this court not to accept the measurement made by the impartial officers of the State. (II) It appears that height of this appellant was measured as 177 c.m. by the respondent State and accordingly, the marks have been given along with other marks of physical test and as this appellant secured lesser marks than the lastly selected candidate among the Non-Home Guard General category candidates, he was not selected for appointment. Therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in appreciating the facts that this Court, several years after publication of the advertisement, i.e. more than a decade, can not interfere and reshuffle the selection list, which has already been made operative and more particularly for the reason that the appellant-original petitioner has not alleged malafide against any particular Officer of the State with respect to measurement of height. (III) The aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present case looking to the following facts, which makes the present case different from the aforesaid cases sited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his contention: (a) The writ petition has been filed more than a decade after the advertisement was published inviting applications for the post of Constable. (b) The selection list has already been prepared and made operative and the panel has already been exhausted before the writ petition was filed. (c) There is no allegation made by this appellant-original petitioner about the malafide intention of a particular officer of the State. 8. As a cumulative effect of these facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.