ORDER D.N. Patel, A.C.J. (Oral) - I.A. No. 6805 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 202 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 202 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6805 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 214 of 2016 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2180 of 2013 dated 3rd September, 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) had applied for the post of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement no. 01/2004 in the year 2004. The candidates have already been selected and appointed. A writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2180 of 2013 was preferred by this appellant in the year 2013. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that initially this appellant had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5014 of 2010 and it was directed by this Court vide order dated 16th August, 2012 to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the clam of this appellant. Thereafter, the claim of this appellant was rejected vide order dated 21st September, 2012. This order is passed by the Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Ranchi. The reason assigned by the respondents is that this appellant has secured few marks for educational qualification and few marks for his height. 7. The height of this appellant was measured as 171 cm and, hence, he was getting 9 marks for his height. 8. The total marks obtained by this appellant was 14 marks which include marks for educational qualification and marks for height. Another candidate has also secured 14 marks. There is Circular issued by the respondent Government Home Department Notification no. 3300 dated 12th November, 2001. 8. The total marks obtained by this appellant was 14 marks which include marks for educational qualification and marks for height. Another candidate has also secured 14 marks. There is Circular issued by the respondent Government Home Department Notification no. 3300 dated 12th November, 2001. As per the said Circular, elder in age will be placed above in the merit list and, hence, another candidate, namely, Sandua Oraon whose date of birth is 12th April, 1974 was placed above because date of birth of this appellant is 11th November, 1979. 9. In view of this Circular and verification of the height of this appellant, no illegality has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the claim of this appellant vide order dated 21st September, 2012, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. 10. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 2180 of 2013 vide order dated 3rd September, 2015. Hence, there being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the same is, hereby, dismissed.