JUDGMENT : Nagarathna, J. - Though, there is a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal, we have nevertheless heard learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 on merits of the appeal. 2. The legality and correctness of order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.82696 of 2013 is assai led in this appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant authorities had issued a notification dated 28.03.2012 calling application from eligible candidates for selection to the post of Dalayat. Respondent No.1 herein had submitted his application in category II-B (Minority). The appellant authorities issued call letters to the eligible candidates for appearing in the interview on 05.09.2012. Since petitioner/respondent No.1 herein did not receive any call letter, he approached the Minority Commission. It was contended by the appellants that despite issuance of call letter, the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein had not appeared in the interview. Hence, he was not selected. Respondent No.1 made an application to the Post Office, Koppal as to whether the said post office has received any letter addressed to him. The Postal authorities issued an endorsement stating that they had not received any ordinary or registered/speed post from the appellants addressed to the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein between 28.08.2012 to 05.09.2012. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 verified details of the selected candidates and became aware that the selected candidates had secured lesser marks than him in the qualifying examination. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to consider his representation dated 25.06.2013 for the purpose of accommodating him as per his merit in the list of selected candidates to the post of Dalayat. In fact, he challenged the final selection list dated 19.10.2012 vide Annexure 'E'. The learned Single Judge on hearing the respective parties has allowed the writ petition and has directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to create a supernumerary post instead of disturbing the final selection list in order to accommodate the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State Government and other authorities have preferred this writ appeal. 4. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record and also the original records pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Dalayat. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State Government and other authorities have preferred this writ appeal. 4. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate for appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record and also the original records pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Dalayat. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants on receipt of the application of respondent No.1 along with other applications scrutinized the same and the call letter was issued to respondent No.1 to appear for the interview, but for reasons best known to respondent No.1, he did not appear for the interview. Consequently, the appellants were justified in ignoring his name as he did not participate in the selection process. Respondent No.1 has to blame himself for not being present in the interview held on 05.09.2012. Therefore, his name did not find a place in the final selection list. Such being the position, learned Single Judge could not have directed creation of a supernumerary post for the purpose of appointment of respondent No.1 to the said post. She contended that the appellants have a good case on merits and therefore, the delay of 100 days in filing the appellant may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits. 6. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/respondent No.1 herein is that in the absence of call letter being sent to him for the interview to be conducted to the post being received by respondent No.1, he could not have attend the interview. That, for no fault of his he was prevented from attending the interview. As a result, his absence was noted by the recruiting authorities and since he did not attend the interview and his participation in the selection process being incomplete, his name did not find a place in the official selection list. He contended that if respondent No.1 had been notified about the interview being held on 05.09.2012, he would have attended the same and he would have been meritorious and would have been appointed to the post of Dalayat. 7. He contended that if respondent No.1 had been notified about the interview being held on 05.09.2012, he would have attended the same and he would have been meritorious and would have been appointed to the post of Dalayat. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further contended that he had secured 489 out of 600 marks in VII Standard examination and he had the requisite merit and more meritorious as compared to those who had been appointed after participation in the interview and despite taking into consideration their marks secured in the interview. Therefore, he submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in directing the official appellants to create a supernumerary post and appoint respondent No.1 in the said post as, for no fault of his, he has been excluded from the selection process. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, as well as the original records, it is noted that respondent No.1 herein had applied to the post of Dalayat pursuant to notification dated 28.03.2012. Considering the fact that he had the requisite merit, as he had secured 489 marks out of 600 in the qualifying examination, which is VII Standard examination, he was called for the interview. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has directed our attention to the list of persons to whom call letters were dispatched for the interview and that on 28.08.2012, call letter was dispatched to respondent No.1 herein and that his serial number is found at 798. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, it must be deemed service of the said call letter on respondent No.1 and if respondent No.1 did not appear in the interview held on 05.09.2012, it is only he who has to be blamed. 10. On perusal of the list Sl.No.798 at page No.157 of the record, we notice that the name of the addressee and his address reads as under: "Sri.Mohammed Faruq Bin Rajjab Ali, Diddikera, Koppal Town, Koppal-583231" 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that such address is an incomplete address as respondent No.1 resides at "Diddikeri Oni" which is a specific lane/street. In the absence of mentioning the word "ONI" in the address, obviously, the call letter for the interview would not have reached respondent No.1. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that such address is an incomplete address as respondent No.1 resides at "Diddikeri Oni" which is a specific lane/street. In the absence of mentioning the word "ONI" in the address, obviously, the call letter for the interview would not have reached respondent No.1. 12. We find considerable force in the submission of respondent No.1 as the address, to which the call letter of the interview was sent as per the original record, is an incomplete address. 'Diddikera' is an area, whereas 'Diddikerioni' is a specific street or lane in the area. Further, the name of the area Diddikeri, whereas it has been written as Diddikera. Therefore, ex facie we find that the address of respondent No.1 does not tally with the address which he had submitted. Obviously, the call letter has not reached him, for which respondent No.1 cannot be blamed. Therefore, learned Single Judge, has directed the appellants herein to create a supernumerary post of Dalayat and accommodate and appoint respondent No.1 to the said post. 13. Further, we also note that respondent No.1 had secured 489 marks out of 600 marks in the qualifying examination which is VII Standard. As per Annexure 'L', which is the representation made by respondent No.1 herein, the comparative marks secured by the candidates has been shown in the General Merit Category. On perusal of the same, we find that respondent No.1 herein had secured more marks than the names of other six candidates which are mentioned in the said Annexure although he did not attend the interview. Further, the last candidate appointed in II-B category has also secured lesser marks than what respondent No.1 has secured in the qualifying examination. Therefore, respondent No.1 herein had the eligibility and merit to be appointed to the post of Dalayat. Hence, we find that the learned Single Judge was right in directing the appellants to create a supernumerary post and appoint respondent No.1 to the said post. We do not find any merit in the appeal. 14. Before parting, we wish to observe that respondent No.1 could not appear in the interview held on 05.09.2012 on account of non-receipt of call letter said to have been issued by the appellant authorities. We do not find any merit in the appeal. 14. Before parting, we wish to observe that respondent No.1 could not appear in the interview held on 05.09.2012 on account of non-receipt of call letter said to have been issued by the appellant authorities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge directed that a supernumerary post be created and respondent No.1 be appointed in the said post. Had respondent No.1 appeared in the interview, having regard to the marks he had secured in the qualifying examination, being 489 out of 600, there was every possibility of respondent No.1 securing an appointment in the year 2012 itself when other candidates were appointed. 15. In the circumstances, while appointing respondent No.1 to a supernumerary post to be created by appellants herein, appellants to also consider as to whether respondent No.1 could be deemed to be appointed on the day when other candidates were appointed and if so, to take into consideration the said period for the purpose of terminal benefits only. 16. The reason for issuing the aforesaid direction is because of the merit respondent No.1 possesses as compared to the candidates who have been appointed in II-B category and also when compared to the candidates who have been appointed in the General Merit category. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand dismissed. Appellants shall comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In view of the disposal of the writ appeal, memo for deletion of respondent No.9 would not survive for consideration and the same is ordered to be filed. In view of the time being extended for compliance in the writ appeal, the contempt proceedings are dropped for the present.