JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. In view of the explanation submitted by the concerned, no further order is required in the matter of explanation which has been sought vide order dated 19.10.2020. I.A. No. 5957 of 2020: 3. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 144 days in preferring the instant appeal. 4. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit. Accordingly, the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 5. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is allowed. L.P.A. No. 305 of 2019: 6. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 09.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5739 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been held to be infructuous and accordingly disposed of. 7. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein read as hereunder: The appellant/writ-petitioner had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein relief for quashing of the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 15.09.2009 issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Deoghar, by which, the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevak had been rejected, which according to the appellant/writ-petitioner is contrary to the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 632 of 2002 with a further direction to appoint the appellant/writ-petitioner as Panchayat Sevak in the light of the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in L.P.A. No. 632 of 2002. The appellant/writ-petitioner had made such prayer on the ground that in pursuance to the decision of the executive committee of Babhan Ganwa Gram Panchayat dated 12.02.1983, recommendation for his appointment to the post of Dalpati was made which was forwarded to the District Panchayat Officer, Dumka prior to bifurcation of the district of Dumka. The appellant/writ-petitioner had made such prayer on the ground that in pursuance to the decision of the executive committee of Babhan Ganwa Gram Panchayat dated 12.02.1983, recommendation for his appointment to the post of Dalpati was made which was forwarded to the District Panchayat Officer, Dumka prior to bifurcation of the district of Dumka. The appellant/writ-petitioner was appointment in pursuance to the aforesaid recommendation as Dalpati by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Dumka vide letter dated 17.02.1983. The appellant/writ-petitioner claims to be eligible for consideration of his appointment/ promotion as Panchayat Sevak and as such, he made an application for consideration to the post of Panchayat Sevak. The appellant/writ-petitioner, even though was found to be eligible to be appointed as Panchayat Sevak but no appointment letter was issued to him in spite of the repeated representations made in this regard. A writ petition was filed before the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 11078 of 1996 for sanctioning the post of Panchayat Sevak and due to non-compliance of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, a contempt petition was filed being M.J.C. No. 484 of 1998 apprising the contempt court about the sanction of a number of posts of Panchayat Sevak and accordingly, the contempt proceeding was dropped. It is the grievance of the appellant/writ-petitioner that even though several posts of Panchayat Sevak were available but no appointment has been made, as such, the appellant/writ-petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 8690 of 1999 for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner for appointment on preferential basis to the post of Panchayat Sevak which after creation of the Jharkhand High Court was transferred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2002 but the same was held to be not maintainable on the ground of non-applicability of the order passed in M.J.C. No. 484 of 1998 wherein it was observed that the person who were holding the post of Dalpati were directed to be made Gram Sevak against the existing vacancies but as per the own saying of the appellant/writ-petitioner, he was not holding the post of Dalpati. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant/writ-petitioner preferred an appeal being L.P.A. No. 632 of 2002 in which a counter affidavit was filed denying the claim of the appellant/writ-petitioner but such statement was denied by giving reply thereof to the effect that one Satya Narayan Jha who was said to have been working on the post of Dalpati had left the job and thereafter the appellant/writ-petitioner had been working on the post of Dalpati. But the aforesaid appeal was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2007 with a liberty to the appellant/writ-petitioner to apply for the post of Panchayat Sevak as and when vacancy arises. The appellant/writ-petitioner came to know from various newspapers that the respondents were going to make appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat, as such, he made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on 17.01.2009 for his appointment on the post of Panchayat Sevak on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 29.11.2007 in L.P.A. No. 632 of 2002 but no action had been taken which prompted the appellant/ writ-petitioner to file writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5739 of 2009 but the same had been rendered to be infructuous on the ground that the appellant/writ-petitioner on the date of passing of order had already attained the age of 57 years while the maximum age for consideration of Panchayat Sevak is 40 years, the same is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact about the question of consideration of the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 632 of 2002 when it was directed to consider the case of the appellant/ writ-petitioner for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevak as and when the vacancy arises and therefore, holding the writ petition infructuous, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, learned GA-III representing the State of Jharkhand has defended the order passed by this Court inter-alia on the ground that the appellant/writ-petitioner since had attained the age of 57 years on the date of passing of the order while the maximum age for entry to the post of Panchayat Sevak is 40 years for general category, therefore, the appellant/writ-petitioner was held to be not eligible for consideration for appointment as Panchayat Sevak and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge is right in holding the writ petition as infructuous, hence, the same requires no interference by this Court. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also the content of the impugned order about the maximum age for consideration of candidature of one or the other candidates for appointment as Panchayat Sevak to be 40 years which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner. 11. It is trite law that the question of consideration to hold the public post depend upon the eligibility criteria and the minimum and maximum age are one of those criteria for consideration of candidature of such candidates. 12. Herein, admittedly, the appellant/writ-petitioner at the time of passing of the order had already attained the age of 57 years and on the date of passing of this order by this Court is having the age of 59 years. Further, he had filed a writ petition in the year 2009. Even at that time, he had attained the age of 48 years which is beyond the maximum prescribed age under the eligibility criteria i.e. 40 years, therefore, the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner in no circumstances was to be considered on the date of filing of the writ petition or on the date of passing of the order or even on the date of passing of this order by this Court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 but was disposed of in the year 2018, therefore, the delay of 09 years cannot be attributable to the appellant/writ-petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 2009 but was disposed of in the year 2018, therefore, the delay of 09 years cannot be attributable to the appellant/writ-petitioner. Even accepting this ground to be true, if the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e. 2009, would be taken into consideration, the appellant/writ-petitioner had attained the age of 48 years and therefore, on the date of filing of the writ petition his candidature could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sevak. 14. Learned Single Judge, however, has recorded the finding by holding the writ petition as infructuous due to efflux of time but we are of the view that the aforesaid order requires modification since the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that even on the date of filing of the writ petition, the appellant/writ-petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment having attained the age of 48 years while the maximum age for consideration of one or the other candidate is 40 years, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference, however, with modification to the extent that in place of holding the writ petition infructuous it be dismissed on merit. 15. In the result, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.