- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101688 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI SHIVUKUMAR IRAPPA MADAR AGED. 25 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/AT. KUDARI KOTAGI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL- 583236. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNDER SECRETARY PRIMARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. (GENERAL), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALURU -560001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL- 583233. 3. THE CHIEF LIBRARY OFFICER DISTRICT LIBRARY CENTER, KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL 583233. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHIKKAMYAGERI, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL 583236. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 5. GANGOORAPPA S/O ERAPPA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. GUEST LECTURER, R/AT. MALAKASAMUDRA, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL 583236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATHA.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3, SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5, NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 29-02-2024 BEARING NO. JI PAM KO/ GRA PAM / CR/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF LIBRARY SUPERVISOR IN RESPECT OF 4TH RESPONDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT CONCERNED CONSIDERING HIS MERITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The 2nd respondent-Zilla Panchayat, Koppal issues a notification calling for the applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Library Supervisor. The petitioner and the 5th respondent both finding themselves eligible in terms of the said notification apply. The petitioner is not selected, while the 5th respondent comes - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 to be selected, to the post of Library Supervisor and has been offered appointment. It is averred that he is working since then. The selection of the 5th respondent in ignorance of the claim of the petitioner, is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Siddappa Sajjan appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Kirtilatha R. Patil-HCGP, appearing for respondent No.1 and 3 and learned counsel Sri.B.V.Somapur, appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: One Muthappa was appointed to the post of Library Supervisor. The appointment of Muthappa comes to be challenged by the present 5th respondent in Writ Petition No.105367/2022. This Court in terms of its order dated 13.09.2023 sets aside the appointment of the 5th respondent, on the ground that the petitioner therein was more meritorious than that of the 5th respondent and directed that if the petitioner therein is found more meritorious than all the candidates in the select list, he - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 should be offered the appointment. The result of the order dated 13.09.2023 is the appointment of the 5th respondent herein. 4. This is now challenged by the present petitioner on the ground that the order of this Court passed earlier has been violated as the 5th respondent is not the most meritorious candidate. But the petitioner is, as the petitioner has secured 67.2% in the qualifying examination i.e. SSLC and the 5th respondent appointed has secured 46.5%. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Siddappa Sajjan appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court had clearly observed that only, if the petitioner therein was found more meritorious than other candidates he should be offered appointment. Admittedly he is not more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore the appointment ought to have been offered, to the petitioner. He would submit that this order was challenged by the appointee Muttappa before the Division Bench and Division Bench - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 has dismissed the Writ Appeal affirming the order of this Court. He would submit the petition be allowed and the petitioner be directed to be appointed. 6. Per Contra the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent would reiterate the submissions made in Writ Petition No.105367/2022 in which he was the petitioner. The submission is that condition Nos.3 and 8 of the notification mandate that persons who have experience of working in National Literacy Mission should be preferred. The 5th respondent has admittedly worked in National Literary Mission. The 5th respondent ought to have got preference and has rightly got preference at the hands of the State. He would therefore seek dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the counsel appearing for the 5th respondent to defend the action of offering the appointment in 5th respondent. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has perused the material on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 9. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. It would suffice if what is held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 105367/2022 is paraphrased to the subject order. This Court had held as follows: 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A notification comes to be issued calling for the applications from the eligible candidates by the 2nd respondent on 17.06.2022. The notification is for the appointment to the post of Library Supervisor and the post is reserved for Scheduled Caste. The condition stipulated in the notification reads as follows: -: µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ :- 1. C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è GwÛÃtðgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ, 2. C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÁ¦ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ( zÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. ¸ÀܽAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ GzÀÞvÀ ¨sÁUÀ ®UÀÄvÀÛ¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 3. ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀzÀ «ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyð ªÀiÁvÀæ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À®vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 4. ¨sÀwðªÀiÁrzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ zÁR¯Áw J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ, n.¹. «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ªÁ¹ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ CAUÀ«PÀ®vÉ (EzÀÝ°è) zÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉ eÉgÁPÀë (EzÀÝ°è) zÁR¯É EvÁå¢UÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 5. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÉ ²PÀët PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ°è Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ°è vÀ¥ÀàzÉ CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÉ ²PÀët PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è zÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¦àzÀ°è Cfð¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀjPÉ ¯ÉÆøÀÖgï C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 6. CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÀV UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw PÀbÉÃj ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸À°è¸À° ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. 7. UÀæAxÁ®AiÀÄ «eÁÕ£ÀzÀ°è vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀݪÀjUÉ CzÀåvÉ ¤ÃqÀ vÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 8. ªÀAiÉÆëÄw CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸À®Ä ¤UÀ¢ ¥Àr¹zÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄÄ 18 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀì£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉʹgÀªÀÅPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ UÀjµÀ× ªÀAiÉÆëÄw F Pɽ£ÀAwgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. J) ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀUÀð -> 35 ªÀµÀð ©) 2J, J©, 3J, 3© -> 36 ªÀµÀð ¹) ¥À.eÁw/¥À.¥ÀAUÀqÀ/¥ÀæªÀUÀð 1 -> 40 ªÀµÀð 9. Cfð £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ ¨sÀwðªÀiÁr PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.” 9. The notification results in the appointment of the 5th respondent. The appointment of the 5th respondent drives the petitioner to this Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is more meritorious than the 5th respondent. The merit of the petitioner qua the 5th respondent is as follows: PÀæ.¸ÀA. C§åyðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J ¯ï.¹ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ±ÉÃPÀqÁªÁgÀÄ % eÁw µÀgÁ xxxxxxx 5. ²æà UÉÆÃAUÀÄgÀ¥Àà vÀAzÉ FgÀ¥Àà ºÀjd£À 01.06.1988 291 46.56% ªÀiÁzÀgÀ “K¸ï.¹.” 2005 jAzÀ 16.05.2013 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀgÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÁ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ ²PÀët ¸À«Äw AiÀÄ®§ÄUÀð EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ zsÀÈrÃPÀgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 xxxxxxx 9. ²æà ªÀÄÄvÀÛ¥Àà vÀAzÉ £ÁUÀ¥Àà ºÀjd£À 01.06.1985 237 37.92% »AzÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ (SC) ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÉ ²PÀët ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀªÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV ªÉÄðéZÁgÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉñÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw 2008jAzÀ 2010gÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÉ ²PÀët PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ¸ÀºÀ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀgÁV 2010 jAzÀ 2018 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÁPÀëgÀvÁ ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀgÉAzÀÄ UËgÀªÀ zsÀ£À DzsÁgÀzÀ°è 2018-19 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¸ÁPÀëgÀvÁ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±ÀðPÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄ wgÀÄUÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ 10. The petitioner in terms of the final select list secures 46.56 marks and the selected candidate i.e., 5th respondent secures 37.92 marks and even then the 5th respondent is selected. 11. The selection is on the solitary ground that he has more than 10 years of experience of working in a National Literacy Mission, which according to the respondent state was more preferable than the petitioner. This is defended owing to a particular condition in the notification for recruitment the condition would be that candidates who have more experience of working in National literacy Mission would be preferred. Therefore it is a preference. It is trite law that reference can be given in a recruitment process to candidates only when they are equal in merit or all other credentials preference cannot outweigh merit or merit cannot be placed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 in the oblivion only on the ground that a particular candidate is more preferable. In the case at hand there is vast difference between the marks secured by the selected candidate and the petitioner the difference is close to 8%. When this huge difference the fifth respondent could not have been selected only on the ground that he had better experience and better experience was preferred. 12. On this solitary ground of the petitioner being more meritorious and the selection to be on the basis of merit the selection of the fifth respondent is rendered unsustainable. Therefore it is for the state to now complete the selection process from the stage at which defect is observed bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The selection and appointment of the fifth respondent is quashed. (iii) If the petitioner is found to be more meritorious than all the candidates in the select list, he shall be offered such appointment. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 (iv) Till the selection process is complete in terms of the directions (supra), the fifth respondent was now join duties and whose appointment is made subject to the result of the present petition shall not be terminated. (v) The selection process as directed shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.” 10. The afore said order was challenged by the 5th respondent, therein before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100573/2023. The Division Bench affirms the order passed by this Court, by the following order: “5. Insofar as the preference, it is to be noticed that the recruitment notification at Annexure-A does not provide for any form of preference superseding the merit. Though there is reference at clause 5 of Annexure-A that the candidates could provide certificate for having worked in the Education Center, however, such preference cannot over rule the merit and that is the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The preference as is made out is by placing reliance at Annexure-G. Even a reading of Annexure-G would point out that the previous experience of the working in the Education Center under the Department of Public Instructions is to be considered for according preference. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 6. The legal position with regard to how preference is to be interpreted has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu and others, reported in 2003 5 SCC 341. The Apex Court in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Judgment has discussed the aspect in detail and the said paragraphs are extracted hereunder for easy reference: “10. Both on account of the scheme of selection and the various stages disclosed as necessary to be undergone by every candidate and the manner of actual selection for the appointment in question, the candidates were required to be selected finally for appointment on the basis of the ranks obtained by them in terms of the inter se ranking based on the merit of their respective performance. There is no escape for anyone from this ordeal and claim for any en bloc favoured treatment merely because, any one of them happened to possess an additional qualification than the relevant basic/general qualification essential for even applying to the post. The word "preference" in our view is capable of different shades of meaning taking colour from the context, purpose and object of its use under the scheme of things envisaged. Hence, it is to be construed not in an isolated or detached manner, ascribing a meaning of universal import, for all contingencies capable of an invariable application. The procedure for selection in the case involves a qualifying test, a written examination and an oral test - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all-round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only, what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The Rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The "preference" envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority merit wise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 consideration and when any one or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-à- vis others in the matter of actual selection. 11. Whenever, a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition, and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, it cannot be for the purpose of putting them as a whole lot ahead of others, dehors their intrinsic worth or proven inter se merit and suitability, duly assessed by the competent authority. Preference, in the context of all such competitive p scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification in respect of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. If it is to be viewed the way the High Court and the Tribunal have chosen to, it would amount to first exhausting in the matter of selection all those, dehors their inter se merit performance, only those in possession of additional qualification and take only thereafter separately those with ordinary degree and who do not possess the additional qualification. Assuming for consideration without even accepting the same to be right or - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 correct view to be taken, at least among the class or category of those. possessing the additional qualification, inter se merit performance should be the decisive factor for actual selection for appointment and relief could not have been granted to the respondents for the mere asking only on the basis of the interpretation of the provision to someone who came to court, ignoring the fact that those before the court at any rate in spite of the view taken do e not come up to the level of selection considered in the context of numerous others with higher ranks of merit performance, in addition to they being also in possession of the additional qualification, as those before the court.” 7. Reading of the above observations of the Apex Court, it is clear that the preference cannot amount to a reservation and has to be given and considered only when the claims of all the candidates who are eligible are found equally positioned. Further, it is to be noticed that, only when two candidates who are eligible are taken up for consideration and when they are equally positioned only then preference can be exercised by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-à-vis others in the matter of actual selection. 8. In the present case, learned Single Judge has clearly taken note of the comparative merit of the petitioner and the 5th respondent and holding that the petitioner was more eligible than the 5th respondent, the conclusion arrived at does not call for any interference. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 Further this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the learned Single Judge as the scope of interference in limited. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the 5th respondent is offered appointment. Now issue goes back to square one as to who is more meritorious. This Court while disposing the earlier petition had clearly observed that if the petitioner therein, was meritorious than all other candidates the appointment should be offered to him, failing which the meritorious candidate should be preferred. The 5th respondent now who was the petitioner in Writ Petition No.105367/2022 is appointed, is he more meritorious than the petitioner is required to be noticed while he is not. The petitioner in the qualifying examination secures 67.2% and the 5th respondent has secured 46.56%. Therefore there is huge difference in merit between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 12. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that preference ought to have been given to persons who have worked in the National Literary Mission - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 i.e the tenor of the notification. He would seek to place reliance upon 2 Clauses of the said circular dated 27.11.2005, which is a direction to fill up the post of Library Supervisor, in all these Gram Panchayat. Condition Nos.5 and 8 upon which reliance is placed reads as follows: 5) ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÀ ²PÀëtzÀr £ÀqÉAiÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÁ PÀ°PÁ PÉÃAzÀæUÀ¼À ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀ/G¥À¥ÉæÃgÀPÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è PÀmÁÖAiÀĪÁV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉëĸÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÉæÃgÀPÀ/ºÁUÀÆ G¥À¥ÉæÃgÀPÀjUÀÆ «ÄøÀ¯Áw C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 8) CAPÀUÀ¼À DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ. ªÉÄ𧠵ÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÉʸÀĪÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ CAPÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. 13. The notification which permits appointment is no doubt indicative of the fact that who has worked in the National Literary Mission should be given preference. That does not mean that merit would be reduced to a nullity in preferring persons who have worked in National Literary Mission. If that would be the tenor of the notification, it would on the face of it become violated of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the only inference that can be drawn from the condition quoted supra is that it is a case of preference, and preference can be given to a - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 candidate only when all parameters are equal, particularly merit. Merit in the case at hand between the petitioner in the 5th respondent is so huge that the 5th respondent could not have been considered even for appointment to the said post. 14. Therefore this Court has to go back to the direction that it had issued earlier, directing the State to offer the appointment to the meritorious person in the select list, if someone is found more meritorious then the petitioner. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The selection of the 5th respondent is quashed. (iii) If the petitioner is found to be more meritorious than all the candidates in the select list, he shall be offered such appointment. (iv) Till the selection process is complete in terms of the directions (supra), the 5th respondent who has now joined duties shall not be terminated. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1090 WP No. 101688 of 2024 (v) The selection process as directed shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51