JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has filed an affidavit regarding service of notice upon respondent no. 5 by way of supplementary counter affidavit dated 17.12.2021. I.A. No. 5847 of 2020 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 610 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 4. It is contended that by mistake certified copy which was obtained earlier for filing of the appeal was kept in some other file and could not be submitted which has caused delay for which the office of the counsel is responsible. There is no omission on the part of the appellant. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. 6. Having regard to the averments made in this application as well as the supplementary affidavit, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 7. In the result, this Interlocutory Application is allowed and delay of 610 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 372 of 2019 8. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5988 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to pass direction for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner on the post of Para Teacher, under the Utkramit Primary School at the Panchayat Thari, District-Dumka, in place of respondent no. 6. 9. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder: The writ petitioner had participated in the process of selection to be appointed as Para Teacher. The Aam Sabha has considered her candidature to be fit amongst all. The claim of the writ petitioner was also based upon the fact that her husband has donated the land for the purpose of saving school. The Aam Sabha has considered her candidature to be fit amongst all. The claim of the writ petitioner was also based upon the fact that her husband has donated the land for the purpose of saving school. But not appointed even in spite of submitting series of representations which compelled the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5988 of 2009 praying therein for the following relief: “For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher under the Utkramit Primary School at the Panchayat Thari in place of Respondent No. 6 as he has not fulfilled the criteria laid down for the post of Para Teacher but unfortunately the official respondent with the collusion of Respondent No. 6 try to appoint him on the said post without calling “Aam Sabha” which is wholly illegal, perverse and unconstitutional as the petitioner has a good qualification and marks.” The State respondent had appeared and filed counter affidavit interalia taking the stand therein that although the Aam Sabha has selected the writ petitioner to be appointed as Para Teacher but such recommendation made by the Aam Sabha has not been approved by the Block Education Committee, Jarmundi. In the meanwhile, one of the applicants, namely, Kuna Devi, a Para Teacher of the same village, objected the selection of the writ petitioner alleging that her selection has been made unfairly by the Village Education Committee, Thari in collusion with few villagers. The Block Education Committee has decided to enquire the complaint at first and thereafter appropriate decision was taken by cancelling the decision of the Aam Sabha, wherein, the name of the writ petitioner was recommended for appointment as Para Teacher. The decision has also been taken for conducting fresh selection by issuing fresh advertisement, in terms thereof, one advertisement was published vide letter no. 295 dated 14.06.2009, referring therein the date and schedule of village Education Committee meeting for such selection. The writ petitioner, although, had applied for consideration of her candidature but not participated in the process of selection, however, one Pramod Kumar Mandal, respondent no. 6, had participated in the selection process and found to be eligible, accordingly, he was appointed. 295 dated 14.06.2009, referring therein the date and schedule of village Education Committee meeting for such selection. The writ petitioner, although, had applied for consideration of her candidature but not participated in the process of selection, however, one Pramod Kumar Mandal, respondent no. 6, had participated in the selection process and found to be eligible, accordingly, he was appointed. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties has found the writ petition fit to be dismissed, accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, against which, the present intra-court appeal. 10. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that gross illegality has been committed by the Aam Sabha in not allowing the writ petitioner to join to the post of Para Teacher, even though, the writ petitioner was having all eligibility criteria but the learned Single Judge, without considering this aspect of the matter, has dismissed the writ petition and as such, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of Law. It has further been contended that in the process of selection, candidature of only one candidate has been considered i.e., respondent no. 6 and therefore, the decision taken in the subsequent Aam Sabha, cannot be said to be proper which has also not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 11. While on the other hand, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned AC to SC-I appearing for the State of Jharkhand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 as also learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 have jointly submitted by refuting the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner by making submission that there is no illegality in the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as also no illegality has been committed by the concerned competent authority while cancelling the decision taken by the Aam Sabha since the recommendation made by the Aam Sabha has been found to be not proper. According to the learned counsel, the cancellation of the decision taken by the Aam Sabha, has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. Further, the appointment of the respondent no. 6 has also not been questioned and as such, whatever ground has been agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is not worth to be considered. 12. According to the learned counsel, the cancellation of the decision taken by the Aam Sabha, has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. Further, the appointment of the respondent no. 6 has also not been questioned and as such, whatever ground has been agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is not worth to be considered. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 13. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was recommended for her appointment as Para Teacher by a meeting of the Aam Sabha conveyed on 10.02.2008. The recommendation made by the Aam Sabha has not been considered by the Block Education Committee. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the complaint made by one another applicant for Para Teacher, namely, Kuna Devi, an enquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that the illegality was committed while recommending the name by the Aam Sabha since it was come on surface that in collusion with the villagers, the Aam Sabha has recommended the name of the writ petitioner. It has also been found that the appointment of the writ petitioner was not as per the norms of selection as prescribed by the department and suggested to cancel the proceeding of the Aam Sabha as also to conduct process for fresh selection of Para Teacher. In terms of the aforesaid recommendation, advertisement was published on 14.06.2009 referring therein the date and schedule of the Village Education Committee meeting for selection of Para Teacher, the writ petitioner as also the respondent no. 6 including two other candidates had applied for consideration of selection but writ petitioner has not chosen to participate in the process of selection as also other two candidates, save and except, respondent no. 6. The Aam Sabha has considered the candidature of the respondent no. 6 and in course thereof, the candidature of respondent no. 6 has been found to be fit since, he was having educational qualification as per the prescribed rules/regulations/norms. The appointment of respondent no. 6 has also been approved by the Village Education Committee. 6. The Aam Sabha has considered the candidature of the respondent no. 6 and in course thereof, the candidature of respondent no. 6 has been found to be fit since, he was having educational qualification as per the prescribed rules/regulations/norms. The appointment of respondent no. 6 has also been approved by the Village Education Committee. Further, the admitted fact is that the writ petitioner has not questioned the decision of the authority on cancellation of the decision taken by the Aam Sabha, wherein, the recommendation for appointment of the writ petitioner has been made, as such, the question arises that so long as the decision of the Aam Sabha is allowed to remain, the writ petitioner cannot come forward in questioning the appointment of respondent no. 6 whose appointment is based upon the decision of the subsequent Aam Sabha. 14. Therefore, according to our view, the writ petitioner, since has not questioned the decision of the Aam Sabha, now she cannot be allowed to question the appointment of respondent no. 6. It is for the reason that basis of rejection of candidature is the cancellation of the recommendation made by the Aam Sabha in favour of the writ petitioner and unless questioned, the decision of Aam Sabha will be treated to be admitted by the writ petitioner. 15. The writ petitioner has also failed to make out a case since herein the appointment of respondent no. 6 has not been questioned, save and except, the prayer made in the writ petition that she has been appointed in place of respondent no. 6 but the question is that unless the appointment of respondent no. 6 will be questioned and reversed by a Court of Law, then only question of consideration of appointment of the writ petitioner as Para Teacher will be there, having not done so, it is not available for the writ petitioner to seek such prayer for her appointment as Para Teacher in place of respondent no. 6. 16. 6 will be questioned and reversed by a Court of Law, then only question of consideration of appointment of the writ petitioner as Para Teacher will be there, having not done so, it is not available for the writ petitioner to seek such prayer for her appointment as Para Teacher in place of respondent no. 6. 16. This Court is also of the view that the writ petitioner, although, had applied for consideration of her selection in pursuance to the subsequent advertisement dated 14.06.2009 which was issued in terms of the decision of the Block Education Committee for conducting fresh selection but chosen not to participate in the process of selection, as such, once the writ petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature without questioning the decision of the Aam Sabha, in which, her name was recommended, she cannot be allowed to question such decision making recommendation for appointment of the respondent no. 6. It is also admitted fact as per the material available on record, respondent no. 6 has been found to be eligible to hold the post of Para Teacher. 17. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, has refused to interfere with the administrative decision of the authority. This Court is of the view, on the basis of the fact in its entirety as per the discussion made hereinabove, that the order impugned suffers from no error. 18. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed.