JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.: I.A. No.3039 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 199 days in preferring the instant criminal appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 199 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 3039 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No.653 of 2018 5. The instant intra-court appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5856 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the prayers sought for by the appellant seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider his appointment to the post of Driver Police in pursuance to Advertisement No.2/2006 has been refused to be allowed by dismissing the writ petition by declining to pass positive direction in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. 6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated herein read hereunder as :- The case of the appellant is that on 04-04-2006 the respondents have published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 2/2006 in the various Newspapers for the post of Driver Police in the Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)- 1, 2, 6 and 7. As per the advertisement minimum qualification for the post was Matriculation with Driving Licence of Heavy Motor Vehicle/Light Motor Vehicle. For the General Category the age limit was 19 to 35 years as on 01.01.2006. As per the Rule of selection there was two part of examination i.e. written test which was only for qualifying purpose and marks for qualifying was 33% out of 100. As per the Advertisement there was a test of Motor Driving and maintenance of Motor Vehicle in which 50 marks was the full marks and those who will get minimum 40 marks out of 50 marks will be considered for appointment. In response to aforesaid advertisement, writ petitioner/appellant applied for the post of Driver Police. He appeared and become successful in the every examination. In response to aforesaid advertisement, writ petitioner/appellant applied for the post of Driver Police. He appeared and become successful in the every examination. Thereafter, the final result was published in which the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was not there. Thereafter, the appellant wrote application under the provision of Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer of Jharkhand Armed Police -7 Hazaribagh and has requested to give information regarding his non-selection on the post of Driver Police. The writ petitioner/appellant got information that the last selected unreserved category candidate has got 45 marks whereas the writ petitioner/appellant has got 41 marks and that is the reason the Petitioner did not get appointment. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he, in pursuance to the Advertisement No.2/2006, as appended as Annexure-2, has made application for consideration of his appointment as Driver Police but even though having passed the examination, he was not declared successful in the final merit list and, thereby he has been deprived from providing the offer of appointment to the post of Driver Police. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5856 of 2017 by taking the ground that the writ petitioner although has been declared to be successful but he has not been appointed and when due information was sought for it was communicated by the Inspector General of Police (Retired) to the Commandant, JAP-7, Hazaribagh with a copy of the said communication to the writ petitioner communicating thereby that the writ petitioner has obtained 41 marks while the last selected candidate under the unreserved category has obtained 45 marks and, therefore, he has not been declared to be successful. The contention has been raised by the writ petitioner by referring Annexure-3 which has been issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police (Retired) by questioning such information given by Inspector General of Police that even though he has been superannuated from service how he has communicated to the Commandant, JAP-7, Hazaribagh regarding the details of marks and reason for declaring not successful. The plea was taken on behalf of the State respondent by referring to Annexure-2 whereby and whereunder the criteria for declaring a candidate to be successful for the purpose of offering offer of appointment letter is that a candidate is required to obtain minimum 40 marks out of 50 marks in the driving test and in the written examination out of 100 marks the candidate is required to obtain 33 marks and the marks obtained in the written examination is only qualifying in nature. It was contended that since the writ petitioner has obtained 41 marks in the different stages of driving test which was the basis for selection of Driver Police and, as such, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the authority. The ground was also taken that merely because the communication regarding reason for non-selection was made by the Inspector General of Police who had superannuated, the merit of the case will not be going to be affected. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, has found substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the State and has dismissed the writ petition which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the issue which has been raised before the learned Single Judge regarding the communication having been made by the Inspector General of Police who had already superannuated as also taken the plea that the writ petitioner although has been declared to be successful but the offer of appointment has not been issued. 8. 8. The State has reiterated the argument which was agitated before the learned Single Judge by taking the ground that since the basic criteria for making selection of the Driver Police is the performance of one or the other candidate to be based upon the different stages of driving test, as would appear from the advertisement as appended as Annexure-2, and the written examination wherein the minimum qualifying marks has been fixed to 33% which is qualifying in nature and, as such, the writ petitioner since has obtained 41 marks in different stages of the driving test while the last selected candidate under the unreserved category since has obtained 45 marks, therefore, he has not been selected and hence it cannot be said on the aforesaid ground that any infirmity has been committed in the process of selection by the selecting agency. 9. 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. 10. The undisputed fact in this case is that the writ petitioner had participated in the process of selection in pursuance to the advertisement No.2/2006, as appended as Annexure-2, for the purpose of adjudication of the lis since the issue has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioner even though has been found to be successful but not been offered with the appointment letter, therefore, the process of selection as stipulated in the advertisement as appended as Annexure-2 is required to be referred herein. It appears from the process of selection as per the advertisement that one or the other candidate was required to participate in two stages of process of selection. First is different stages of driving test in which the candidate is required to obtain 40 marks out of 50 and second is the written examination which is of 100 marks out of which 33 marks has been fixed to be qualifying in nature. The relevant part of the said advertisement which is in Hindi is being reproduced herein. First is different stages of driving test in which the candidate is required to obtain 40 marks out of 50 and second is the written examination which is of 100 marks out of which 33 marks has been fixed to be qualifying in nature. The relevant part of the said advertisement which is in Hindi is being reproduced herein. p;u izfØ;k %& ;kaf=d Kku& NksVh eksVh ;akf=d =qfV;ksa ,oa muds fuLRkkj ds lEca/k esa mEehnokjksa ds Kku dh tkap dks tk;sxh ¼[k½ VªSfQd ladsr dk Kku&VªSfQd fpag] VSªfQd flaXuy rFkk eksVj oSfgdYl vf/kfu;e ds lk/kkj.k Kku dh tkWp dh tk;sxh ¼x½ xkM+h ifjpkyu ,oa la/kkj.k dh {kerk dh tkWp ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 50 vadks esa U;wure 40 vad izkIr djus okys mEehnokj ds laca/k esa gh fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA ¼?k½ fyf[kr ijh{kk&eSfVªd d{kk ds Lrj dh fyf[kr ijh{kk esa 100 vadks dh gksxh ftles ls mu ls de 33 izfr'kr vad ykuk vfuok;Z gksxkA fyf[kr ijh{kk ek= DokyhQkabx gksxhA The writ petitioner, after having participated in the process of selection but when not offered with the appointment letter, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5856 of 2017 wherein the ground has been reiterated by the respondent State that since the writ petitioner has obtained 41 marks in the driving test while the last selected candidate under the unreserved category has obtained 45 marks and, therefore, the writ petitioner has rightly not been offered with the appointment letter. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the State by referring to the advertisement wherein as per the process stipulated in the advertisement, as appended as Annexure-2, there are two stages of process of selection and from its perusal it is evident that the written examination which was of 100 marks was qualifying in nature out of which 33 marks was required to be obtained by one or the other candidate, meaning thereby, the marks obtained in the written examination will have no bearing in the preparation of merit list reason being that the selection is to be made for the post of Driver Police. It further appears that the basis of preparing the merit list as per the advertisement is the performance of one or the other candidates in different stages of examination pertaining to the driving of vehicle and its maintenance wherein 40 marks out of 50 marks was to be obtained by one or the other candidate. It is, thus, evident that the basis of preparing the merit list is only the performance of one or the other candidate based upon the driving test in which 40 marks was required to be obtained out of 50 marks. It appears from Annexure-3, the communication issued by the concerned authority that the last selected candidate has obtained 45 marks under the unreserved (General) category but while the writ petitioner has obtained 41 marks and, therefore, the reason has been assigned that the writ petitioner has not been found to be more meritorious in comparison to the last selected candidate under his category. 11. The position of law is well settled that there cannot be any interference in the decision by way of exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but if the decision making process suffers from any infirmity then the scope of judicial review can always be exercised, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed TA Naqshbandi and Ors. v. State of J & K and Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 592 , wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the Courts exercising powers of judicial review unlike the case of an appellate court, would neither be permissible nor conducive to the interests of either the officers concerned or the system and institutions……” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 has been pleased to hold that so far as the judicial review is concerned, reviewing not the merit of the decision in support of which application for judicial review is made but the decision making process itself. In Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492 the scope of judicial review has been laid down by holding therein that the decision making process suffers from bias of arbitrariness, the same will be scrutinized under the power of judicial review. 12. This Court has examined the issue as to whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process and after considering the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that since the writ petitioner has been found to have obtained 41 marks while under his category the last selected candidate has obtained 45 marks, on the basis of performance in different stages of driving test, which is the basis of preparing merit list as per the advertisement as quoted and required above. 13. Keeping that fact into consideration and discussions made hereinabove and after going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court has found that thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been given and, therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order requires no interference. 14. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.