ORDER
D.K. Sinha, J.
1. This Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 17th July, 2003 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4627 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner in limini with the observation:
No case of illegality, inequality and discrimination has been made out by the petitioner.
This writ petition is dismissed.
2. The appellant filed an interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1266 days delay in filing the LPA on the ground that no communication was made to him by the learned Counsel on the record after he had filed W.P.(S) No. 4627 of 2002.
2.2. Yet, the appellant having come to know about appointment of some candidates from the panel prepared in 2002, he enquired from the clerk of his counsel sometimes in the month of October/November 2006 about the result of his writ petition from whom he came to learn that Mr. Maurya Bijay Chandra had left India and was living some where in England and that his writ petition was dismissed and due to communication gap he could not pursue his case diligently.
2.3. Explaining the delay, it is contended that the appellant visited High Court in 3rd week of December 2006 and again after opening of the Court in 2nd week of January 2007. Lastly when he came to learn about disposal of his writ petition, he obtained certified copy of the impugned order for filing LPA and accordingly it was filed on 2.2.2007.
2.4. Pursuant to and advertisement (Annexure-2) the appellant appeared in the combined written test for the posts of Assistant/Cleiks against the total existing vacancy of 587 posts in Jharkhand High Court and different Civil Courts in Jharkhand. The appellant after sometime received interview letter (Annexure- 3) to appears at the interview for the post of Assistants in the Civil Courts and accordingly he appeared at the interview Board on 9.12.2001.
3. The appellant contended that inspire of his well performance in the interview, he could not receive his appointment letter for either posts. He speculated that though he sufficiently performed well in the written test as well as in interview and he expected his position sufficiently higher than others in the merits list but he was denied opportunity which was arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution and he had legitimate expectation of being appointed at least on the post of clerk in the Civil Courts in the reserved category for OBC to the extent of 14 (fourteen) percent of total vacancy.
4. The respondent-High Court in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition contended that the petitioner/appellant obtained only 48 marks in the written test and only 4 marks in the interview. It was further contended that the minimum cut-off marks for B.C.O. to qualify for the post of Clerk in the Civil Courts was 50 marks in written test and 4 marks in interview. The petitioner since could not obtain the minimum cut-off marks to qualify in the category O.B.C., no appointment letter was issued to him on either post. The respondent explained that out of select list 532 candidates were appointed clerks in the different Civil Courts and 53 candidates securing higher marks were appointed Assistant in the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. We have also summoned the original records and perused the same.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellant failed to show ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4627 of 2002. Similarly, no cause has been explained to condone unreasonable delay of 1266 days in filing LPA. There being no merit, the LPA as well as I.A. No. 321 of 2007 are dismissed. No order as to cost.
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.
6. I agree.