Aniruddha Bose, J. This Interlocutory Application is for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and find that there was sufficient cause for which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 11510 of 2018 stands disposed of. L. P. A. No. 756 of 2018 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants, 36 individuals in total, had participated in a State-wide selection process for appointment of Assistant Teachers in different Government Primary Schools. The selection process was initiated by an advertisement dated 29th August, 2002, entitled “Primary Trained Teachers Recruitment Exam, 2002”. Though in the memorandum of appeal this date is not mentioned, learned Advocates appearing for the parties have confirmed in course of hearing this date to be the date of advertisement. After publication of the advertisement, examination was held and on that basis panel was prepared and published for the candidates who had crossed the benchmark eligibility criteria. For the Giridih division, 483 candidates were declared successful. The appellants did not figure in that list. Appointment letters to successful candidates started to be issued from that list on and from 22nd January, 2004. There were complaints however that several candidates featuring in that list were ineligible. Subsequently, appointments of 212 of such candidates were cancelled on the ground of them being ineligible. This necessitated fresh appointments and second list of successful candidates was published on 18th August, 2005. 3. The present appeal arises out of dispute over the dates of appointment of selected candidates in the district of Giridih. Admitted position is that for the district of Giridih, initial merit list did not contain the names of the appellants, from whose writ petition this appeal originates. Their names did not appear as successful candidates because they did not initially fulfill the stipulated criteria so far as qualifying marks in the selection process is concerned. Some of those ineligible candidates whose appointments were cancelled had approached this Court questioning their exclusion but by a judgment delivered on 30th March, 2005 a Coordinate Bench of this Court sustained the action of the authorities in deleting their names from the merit list. Some of those ineligible candidates whose appointments were cancelled had approached this Court questioning their exclusion but by a judgment delivered on 30th March, 2005 a Coordinate Bench of this Court sustained the action of the authorities in deleting their names from the merit list. Several appeals were disposed of by the judgment, the lead appeal being L.P.A. No. 246 of 2004 (Sumanata Kumar Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others). After deletion of the names of such ineligible candidates, another list was prepared on the basis of the marks allocated in the selection process undertaken in the year 2003. The appellants’ names appeared in the list published in August, 2005. We shall henceforth refer to this list as the second list. The appellants were eventually issued appointment letters upon selection and they joined their respective allocated primary schools. 4. In the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, main prayer of the writ petitioners was for a direction upon the respondents to confer upon them presumptive appointments with effect from 22nd January, 2004. It appears that other selected candidates whose names had appeared in the first list have been given appointment letters on that date. There are certain other ancillary reliefs which were prayed for in the writ petition but we need not reproduce the same over here, as in the event the appellants succeed in obtaining the main relief, other reliefs would broadly follow. 5. There are three decisions which have been cited before us by the appellants in which for the districts of Dhanbad, Chaibasa and Godda, the candidates who were appointed at a later date were given notional appointment by shifting their date of initial appointments to make them at par with other regular candidates. The first decision in this line of cases was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2007 (Harendra Kumar Ghosh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others). The judgment was delivered on 2nd February, 2011 in respect of two writ petitioners who appeared in the selection process in the district of Dhanbad. Their names had appeared in the initial merit list which was published on 13th November, 2003. This appears from an order of the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih which has been made Annexure “2” to the present memo of appeal. Their names had appeared in the initial merit list which was published on 13th November, 2003. This appears from an order of the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih which has been made Annexure “2” to the present memo of appeal. There was delay in sending their documents for verification as a result of which their appointment letters were received on 2nd December, 2004. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with the following direction :- “8. In view of these facts and looking to Annexure 3 to the writ petition, I, hereby, direct the respondents to issue necessary office order, circular, treating 22nd December, 2003 (the date on which other successful candidates, for the post of Teacher, have been issued appointment letters) as the date of appointment of the petitioners. 9. The petitioners are actually appointed on 2nd December, 2004 and Counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioners are not claiming any salary from 22nd December, 2003 to the actual date of appointment, i.e. 2nd December, 2004. But, if 22nd December, 2003 is not treated as the date of appointment of the petitioners, they will lose their seniority, G.P.F. & Pensionery benefits etc. 10. I, therefore, direct the respondents to issue office circular/order/notification giving notional date of appointment with effect from 22nd December, 2003 to the petitioners.” 6. We are apprised by the learned Advocates for the parties that the said judgment ultimately was carried up till the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which was registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 338 of 2014. The appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The next judgment on similar dispute arose in relation to appointments in the district of West Singhbhum. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 588 of 2015 (Smt. Harjeet Kaur Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) decided on 12th April, 2016 chose to affirm the reasoning given in the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh (supra) and confirmed the claim of the aggrieved teacher, inter-alia, holding :- “6. Viewed thus, the appeal on hand stands allowed to the extent that the respondent-State shall verify, whether necessary documents after the declaration of the result were submitted by the petitioner in time or not and whether there was any deficiency in the documents submitted by the petitioner. Viewed thus, the appeal on hand stands allowed to the extent that the respondent-State shall verify, whether necessary documents after the declaration of the result were submitted by the petitioner in time or not and whether there was any deficiency in the documents submitted by the petitioner. If the case of the petitioner is ultimately found similar on facts, as is the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh (supra), the case of the petitioner shall be considered for giving her notional date of appointment with effect from 22.12.2003. It goes without saying that in the event of the petitioner granted the said relief, she shall not be entitled for salary from 22.12.2003 to 01.10.2005.” 7. The third writ petition registered as W.P. (S) No. 6045 of 2014 arose from the Godda Division. Four selected candidates had approached this Court seeking reliefs of similar nature, having been issued the appointment letters on 2nd August, 2005. The learned Single Judge upon observing that the petitioners seem to have been deprived only on account of delay in verification of their documents caused due to laches on the part of the respondents disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of the order passed in the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh (supra) and another judgment delivered in W.P. (S) No. 374 of 2015. 8. So far as the present set of appellants are concerned, it is not their case that there was delayed verification of their documents. They have alleged that they were arbitrarily excluded from the first list because of ingress of ineligible candidates in the list who were lacking in essential qualification. Otherwise they ought to have been included in the initial list. On that basis the main relief has been asked for. 9. Mr. Krishna, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, has submitted that his clients are not claiming any direct financial benefit but seek notional shifting of the date of appointment which would entitle them to various in-service benefits like Assured Career Progression Scheme etc. The main reason for such shifting, however, appears to be a pension scheme more favourable to the teaching staff which has been discontinued with effect from 30th November, 2004 and a new contributory pension scheme has been introduced from the very next date i.e. 1st December, 2004. 10. The main reason for such shifting, however, appears to be a pension scheme more favourable to the teaching staff which has been discontinued with effect from 30th November, 2004 and a new contributory pension scheme has been introduced from the very next date i.e. 1st December, 2004. 10. Under the old scheme, burden of pension was to be borne directly by the State Government whereas under the new scheme there has to be shared monthly contribution. Though not spelt out in clear terms, that seems to be the main attraction for shifting the date of appointment on notional basis. But this is not the factor on which we are deciding this appeal. 11. Submission of Mr. Krishna is that his clients’ positions are not different from the sets of candidates whose claims for notional shifting of dates of appointments were allowed by this Court. In their cases, there was delay in verification though their names appeared in the first list and the Court found that the delay on that ground could not deprive the candidates from the benefits of earlier dates of appointment which had been given to other similarly situated selected candidates. 12. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the State, however, has argued that the present case is not a case for relief based on parity. His submission is that in the cases relied upon by Mr. Krishna, selection of the respective candidates had been together but for those litigants, appointments could not be effected because of procedural delay mainly on the part of the authorities. But so far the appellants are concerned, their claims surfaced only after the publication of the second list on 18th August, 2005. This was a date later than the date on which the appellants seek notional appointment, being 22nd January, 2004. 13. The question we are to deal with now is as to whether the publication of the appellants’ names in the second list results in any material alteration of their status vis a vis the candidates whose claims have been allowed by this Court or by the State upon being asked to be considered their cases. 14. Mr. 13. The question we are to deal with now is as to whether the publication of the appellants’ names in the second list results in any material alteration of their status vis a vis the candidates whose claims have been allowed by this Court or by the State upon being asked to be considered their cases. 14. Mr. Krishna’s stand is that the reasons for exclusion of his clients are of graver nature than the reasons cited by the State in respect of the other candidates as in the case of the appellants in this proceeding, they were kept outside the select list or the merit list because of ingress of ineligible candidates and that very fact is also on account of fault on the part of the State or the examining body. His stand is that in the event the date of appointment can be shifted back on notional basis where the State was guilty of delaying the verification process then there is no reason as to why the legitimate right to be included in the merit list ought to be defeated because of a faulty preparation of merit list. 15. So far as the appellants are concerned, they have already been engaged. Mr. Banerjee has raised the question of delay in approaching the Court. But in our view, such delay is not of fatal nature to non-suit the appellants altogether. No creation of any third party right has been demonstrated before us because of such delay in approaching the Court. The nature of relief claimed is also not such that because of delay, such relief would become incapable of being granted. But Mr. Banerjee has also submitted that the appellants did not come within the select zone when the initial list was published and they had to be lifted up from their respective positions to be brought within the select zone by publishing a second list for filling up the vacancies. The said fact in our opinion distinguishes the appellants’ case from that of other candidates who have been successful in having their date of appointment shifted. In this case, the appellants’ right had accrued on publication of the second list only. Thus, there is no direct parity of the appellants with the eligible candidates of the first list. The said fact in our opinion distinguishes the appellants’ case from that of other candidates who have been successful in having their date of appointment shifted. In this case, the appellants’ right had accrued on publication of the second list only. Thus, there is no direct parity of the appellants with the eligible candidates of the first list. In such circumstances the prejudice caused to the appellants because of creation of faulty list by the State cannot be redressed to in exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court by directing ante-dating their appointment dates. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition holding:- “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The appointment of the some of the candidates were cancelled by the JPSC and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court did not find any illegality or infirmity in cancellation of the appointment, which was affirmed up to Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 235/2004 with LPA No. 236/2004. The claim of the petitioners is that they were appointed subsequently in the second phase when fresh result was published, but the appointment letters were issued on 18.08.2005 and i.e. after the cut-off date and the same was duly accepted by the petitioners and no objection for the same was ever made by the petitioners. It is only after accepting the appointment letter and joining the said post, they have made representations and also approached this Court after long delay for consideration of their cases for notional appointment w.e.f. 22.01.2004, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. No notional appointment can be considered for an imaginary date i.e. 22.01.2004, when the petitioners were not appointed on that date.” 16. In our opinion, there is no flaw in the reasoning of the learned First Court in rejecting the claims of the appellants. The appointment status of the appellants were not conceived till publication of the second list. For these reasons, we do not accept the submission of Mr. Krishna. 17.The appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.