JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. The petitioners in the instant writ petition claim to be landowners who had donated land free of cost for the establishment of Peren District Headquarters including the District Hospital, Peren. Their families are yet to be provided any facilities, i.e., contract, supply or appointment on the basis of landownership till date. The petitioners had filed WP(C)/19/2023, WP(C)/20/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/22/2023 and WP(C)/23/2023 being aggrieved by the appointments of non-landowners to substantive vacancies of Grade-IV posts under the establishment of District Hospital, Peren. This Court, by a common Order dated 12.02.2024 had quashed and set aside the Appointment Orders of the non-landowners and directed the respondent authorities to initiate fresh process for filling up the vacancies by inviting applications from all interested and eligible persons. It was further directed that the applicants, thereafter upon being screened and their claim verified in terms of the standing guidelines issued by the State Government, shall be shortlisted for appointment. The State respondents were also directed to complete the entire process within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order. 2. Thereafter, in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 12.02.2024, the Principal Director, Department of Health & Family Welfare had issued an Advertisement No. DHFW-3/Court-Case/Peren/Gr-IV/7519-26 dated 07.07.2024, which was totally silent on the landownership rights as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018. It was issued in clear violation of the common Order dated 12.02.2024. The petitioners, therefore, came before this Court by filing WP(C)/160/2024 assailing the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024. While disposing WP(C)/160/2024 the State respondents were directed to publish a fresh advertisement where it would be mentioned, amongst other conditions, that the landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. In compliance, the State Government had issued another Advertisement No. DHFW-3/Court-Case/Peren/Gr-IV dated Nil, March 2025. However, by the impugned interview Meeting Minutes dated 26.03.2025, the impugned Administrative Approval dated 15.05.2025 and the impugned Notification dated 28.05.2025, the private respondents nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were recommended solely on the basis of merit without considering eligible landowners and thereafter the impugned Appointment Orders dated 12.06.2025 were issued appointing the private respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were recommended solely on the basis of merit without considering eligible landowners and thereafter the impugned Appointment Orders dated 12.06.2025 were issued appointing the private respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Taka Masa assisted by Mr. Sentilong. Also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the Private respondent nos. 8 to 11. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has stated that the petitioners’ families are the genuine land donors of the Peren District Headquarters and they have executed a Deed of Agreement dated 12.12.1995 and 23.11.1998 with the State Government, wherein it has been specifically agreed that the acquisition of land is purely in the form of freewill donation to the Government and no land compensation shall be paid to the landowners. However, in lieu of land compensation special preference will be given to the landowners in allotting any type of contract works within the town. It was also agreed that as and when any vacancy arise, preference shall be given to the landowners for appointment in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts. The Government of Nagaland has laid down the policy for appointment of landowners to all Grade-IV posts under the Government of Nagaland vide Office Memorandum No. LR/LAND-PLCY/5-26/2011 dated 16.08.2018. 5. Learned senior counsel states that none of the petitioners have received any of the facilities as agreed upon in the Agreement dated 12.12.1995 and 23.11.1998 and further none of them have been appointed on the basis of landownership. Sometime in the year 2020, 3 (three) posts of Medical Attendants, 1 (one) post of MTS and 1 (one) post of Lab Attendant fell vacant on the retirement of the incumbents. The present petitioners also submitted their applications; however, while their cases were under consideration on the basis of landownership, 5 (five) non-landowners were appointed through the backdoor. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved, had filed WP(C)/19/2023, WP(C)/20/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/22/2023 and WP(C)/23/2023 and this Court, by a common Order dated 12.02.2024 quashed and set aside the impugned Appointment Orders and directed the State respondents to initiate a fresh process for filling up the vacancies by inviting applications from all interested and eligible persons. 7. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved, had filed WP(C)/19/2023, WP(C)/20/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/22/2023 and WP(C)/23/2023 and this Court, by a common Order dated 12.02.2024 quashed and set aside the impugned Appointment Orders and directed the State respondents to initiate a fresh process for filling up the vacancies by inviting applications from all interested and eligible persons. 7. In compliance, the Principal Director, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare issued the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024; however, the said Advertisement was totally silent about the landownership rights of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners filed WP(C)/160/2024. This Court disposed of WP(C)/160/2024 by Order dated 06.11.2024 and the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 was quashed and set aside and the State respondents were directed to publish fresh advertisement wherein it shall be mentioned that the landowners and their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. 8. In compliance with the Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/160/2024, the Principal Secretary issued Advertisement dated Nil, March 2024. The eligibility criteria and conditions in the said Advertisement dated Nil, March 2024 is reproduced here below: “(1) The applicant should be an indigenous inhabitant of the concerned area. (As per Govt. O.M. issued vide No. AR-3/GEN-174/2007 (PT) Dt. Kma, the 4 th June 2016) (2) The age of the candidates should not be less than 18 years and not more than 37 years as on 31.03.2025 which shall be supported by the Birth Certificate from the Department of Economics & Statistics. (3) Candidate should be at least Class V passed. (4) Application should reach the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland Kohima on or before 21.03.2025, Room No-301 (Establishment section) during office hour. Interview will be conducted on 26.03.2025 from the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Nagaland, Kohima (DSP Hall) starting from11.00 AM. (5) Those applicants who have already applied against the above mentioned posts advertised vide Order No. DHFW-3/Court- Case/Peren/Gr-IV/7519-26/dated 07.08.2024 need not re- apply. (6) The candidates are hereby directed to bring the following documents in original. (a) N.O.C. from the respective Village Council/Ward Chairman. (b) Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. (c) Schedule Tribe Certificate. (d) Academic Documents. (e) Incomplete applications shall be summarily rejected by the Board. (7) Amongst other conditions regarding eligibility, that the Land Owners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment.” 9. (a) N.O.C. from the respective Village Council/Ward Chairman. (b) Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. (c) Schedule Tribe Certificate. (d) Academic Documents. (e) Incomplete applications shall be summarily rejected by the Board. (7) Amongst other conditions regarding eligibility, that the Land Owners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment.” 9. The petitioners, being eligible and being land donors, also submitted their applications in pursuance of the said Advertisement dated Nil March 2025. At this stage, the petitioners had also submitted an RTI Application dated 12.03.2024 before the Department of Health & Family Welfare to find out how many persons were appointed on landowner basis since the establishment of the Primary Health Center till upgradation to District Hospital, Peren. In the reply to the RTI Application it was clearly mentioned that none have been appointed on landownership basis. 10. It is submitted that, an oral Interview was held on 26.03.2025 and the petitioners also appeared for the same. The Interview Board only asked them simple general questions which were answered by the petitioners and none of the Interview Board Members enquired as to whether the petitioners are the genuine landowners who had donated their lands free of cost for establishment of the Peren District Hospital. 11. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued the impugned Notification No. DHFW-3/Court-Case/Peren/Gr-IV/1757-61 dated 28.05.2025 wherein it was shown that the Private respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Shri Keyikieteing, one of the land donors and a co-writ petitioner in the previous two cases, had been selected on merit basis. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted Representations dated 12.06.2025 and an RTI Application dated 06.06.2025 was also filed seeking information with regard to the Interview result. 12. The RTI Reply was received through a Letter dated 19.06.2025 and the documents supplied included the applications submitted by the 5 (five) successful candidates. A perusal of the Reply reveals that none of selected candidates were landowners except Shri Keyikieteing. The RTI Reply also furnished the impugned Meeting Minutes of the Department Selection Committee held on 26.03.2025 for selection of the aforesaid 5 (five) Grade-IV posts. It includes the marks scored by the candidates and the Meeting Minutes show that the candidates were selected solely on merit basis. No preferential treatment was given to the landowners or their family members. No minimum eligibility criteria were also set by the Interview Board for consideration. 13. It includes the marks scored by the candidates and the Meeting Minutes show that the candidates were selected solely on merit basis. No preferential treatment was given to the landowners or their family members. No minimum eligibility criteria were also set by the Interview Board for consideration. 13. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel that the decision and recommendation of the Interview Board was in clear violation of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, Order dated 12.02.2024 passed in WP(C)/19/2023, Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/160/2024 and Condition No. 7 of the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025. It is also averred that the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are clearly not land donors. No extra marks were also given to the petitioners on the basis of being land donors, nor any preferential treatment given to them on the basis of landownership. Further, there was no written examination but only an oral interview where the Board Members simply inquired about the background of the petitioners, which was answered satisfactorily by the petitioners. The oral Interview was purely subjective and not objective in nature and the Interview was conducted with a pre-conceived mind of the Interview Board Members under extraneous conditions. 14. It is the specific submission of the learned senior counsel that an oral interview is only to test the personality of the candidates and cannot determine the merit of the candidates in the absence of any written examination. And as such, the recommendation of the Interview Board and the Administrative Approval basing only on the oral interview is totally arbitrary and cannot stand the test of law. However, the petitioners are not challenging the selection and appointment of Shri Keyikieteing as he is a genuine landowner. It is further submitted that the impugned Meeting Minutes dated 26.03.2025 is also arbitrary, illegal, without any application of mind and in clear violation of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, the Orders of this Court passed in the previous writ petitions and the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025. 15. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court, by the Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/160/2024 has specifically directed that landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for preferential treatment to be appointed against the Grade-IV posts at District Hospital, Peren on the basis of landownership. Learned senior counsel also submitted that this Court, by the Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/160/2024 has specifically directed that landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for preferential treatment to be appointed against the Grade-IV posts at District Hospital, Peren on the basis of landownership. It is pertinent that they were found eligible for consideration by the respondent authorities when their applications were accepted on the basis of landownership and allowed to appear before the Interview Board and further they could answer all the questions satisfactorily. However, in a most arbitrary manner, they were denied appointment by the Interview Board. 16. Learned senior counsel also submits that when the petitioners appeared for the oral Interview on 26.03.2025, they were under the impression and belief that the Interview Board shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the standing guidelines, Orders of this Court and the Conditions stipulated in the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025. But, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the Interview Board and the respondent authorities had acted in clear violation of the standing guidelines, the Orders of this Court and the Conditions for preferential treatment in the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025 only after they obtained the detailed information through the RTI Reply dated 19.06.2015. As such, the present writ petition is not a case where the petitioners, after appearing in the Interview and being unsuccessful are challenging the interview result and, therefore, this legal principle cannot be made applicable in the present case. 17. Another submission of the learned senior counsel is that the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007(PT) dated 07.12.2016 lays down the procedure for filling up Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the Departments. 17. Another submission of the learned senior counsel is that the Office Memorandum No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007(PT) dated 07.12.2016 lays down the procedure for filling up Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the Departments. At paragraph-2 of the said Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016, it is laid down that a Departmental Screening Committee in any Department for recruitment to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts (except Police Department) shall consist of: 1) Director or Head of Department - Chairman 2) Representative of concerned Administrative Department not below the rank of Under Secretary - Member 3) Representative of P&AR Department not below the rank of Under Secretary - Member A senior officer of concerned Secretary Directorate not below the rank of Deputy Director in-charge of administration - Member However, it is seen from the Meeting Minutes dated 26.03.2025, that the Screening Committee/Interview Board consisted of the Principal Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and the Registrar of the Department of Health & Family Welfare. Therefore, it is evident that even the Screening Committee/Interview Board was constituted in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016 and, therefore, the same is illegal and needs to be quashed and set aside. 18 . Learned senior counsel submits that by recommending and appointing the Private respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018 has been rendered redundant. By relying on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Hindustan Bulk Carriers reported in (2003) 3 SCC 57, learned senior counsel submits that the provisions of one section of the statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossible to affect reconciliation between them. Thus a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a “useless slumber” or “dead letter” is not a harmonious construction. Therefore, the State respondents should have conducted the interview in such a way that the Conditions in the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018 is implemented in letter and spirit. 19. Learned senior counsel, in view of the aforementioned submissions prays that the impugned Meeting Minutes of the Departmental Screening Committee held on 26.03.2025, the impugned Approval Letter dated 15.05.2025, the impugned Notification dated 28.05.2025, the impugned Orders dated 12.06.2025 appointing the respondent nos. 19. Learned senior counsel, in view of the aforementioned submissions prays that the impugned Meeting Minutes of the Departmental Screening Committee held on 26.03.2025, the impugned Approval Letter dated 15.05.2025, the impugned Notification dated 28.05.2025, the impugned Orders dated 12.06.2025 appointing the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioners on the basis of landownership to the 4 (four) Grade-IV posts at the District Hospital, Peren under the establishment of the Medical Superintendent, Peren strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, the common Order dated 12.02.2024 passed in WP(C)/19/2023, WP(C)/20/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/22/2023 and WP(C)/23/2023, the Order dated 26.11.2024 passed in WP(C)/160/2023 and Condition No. 7 of the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025. 20. Per contra the learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami appearing for the State respondent nos. 1 to 7 submits that the petitioners as well as the Private respondents were all eligible to apply for the 5 (five) Grade-IV posts which were advertised by the Advertisement dated Nil March 2025 as they were all indigenous inhabitants of Peren District. It is evident from a perusal of the common Order dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court that the advertisement should be open for all interested and eligible persons and is not restricted only for the landowners. Therefore, the advertisement for the 5 (five) Grade-IV posts called upon all eligible indigenous inhabitants of Peren District, who were not less than 18 (eighteen) years and not more than 35 (thirty-five) years as on 31.03.2024 and who had passed Class-V. This Court, in the Order dated 12.02.2024, while directing the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh process for filling up the vacancies in District Hospital, Peren were also directed that the applicants upon being screened and their claim verified in terms of the standing guidelines issued by the State Government shall be shortlisted for appointment. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 26.11.2024, in WP(C)/160/2024, the respondents had also issued a fresh Advertisement dated Nil March 2025 inserting a specific condition that amongst other conditions the landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. As stated in the Advertisement, an Interview was conducted on 26.03.2025 and basing on the marks obtained by the applicants/candidates, the successful candidates were selected. As stated in the Advertisement, an Interview was conducted on 26.03.2025 and basing on the marks obtained by the applicants/candidates, the successful candidates were selected. The learned Senior Government Advocate submits that there is a clear direction in the Order dated 26.11.2024 of this Court that the landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment only if they are found eligible for appointment which means that if a general candidate as well as a landowner candidate are both equally eligible for appointment then only preference will be given to the landowner. The preferential treatment as mentioned by this Court cannot be interpreted to mean that a landowner, who has failed in the interview should be selected and appointed on account of him or her being a landowner. As seen from the Interview Score Sheet, the Private respondents have performed better than the petitioners and scored higher marks. The Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025 clearly mentions that only an interview will be conducted. Knowing fully well that it was only an interview and not a written examination, the petitioners have appeared for the same and, therefore, the petitioners cannot turn around and allege that the recommendation of the Interview Board and Administrative Approval only on the basis of oral interview is arbitrary and illegal. 21. The learned Senior Government Advocate submits that if the interpretation of the petitioners regarding preferential treatment is considered and accepted by the Court then the very basis of the direction of this Court dated 12.02.2024 becomes meaningless inasmuch as the Order dated 12.02.2024 has directed the respondents to initiate a fresh process by inviting applications from all interested and eligible persons. Therefore, it has to be taken that the Order of this Court dated 12.02.2024 meant that landowners as well as general candidates could apply in pursuance to the Advertisement dated Nil March 2025. The learned Senior Government Advocate by relying on the case of Madan Lal And Others Versus State of J&K And Others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , has submitted that the petitioners appeared for the oral interview willingly and without any protest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case had held that the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the oral interview and only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful, they have filed a petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case had held that the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the oral interview and only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful, they have filed a petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or that the selection committee was not properly constituted. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected in the interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. Learned Senior Government Advocate therefore, submits that the petitioners have no legal right to assail the interview process or the appointments of the private respondents and prays that the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed. 22. Learned counsel, Mr. Limawapang appearing for the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 has also adopted the submissions made by the learned Senior Government Advocate. He further submits that in terms of the policy framed by the State Government for appointment on landownership basis vide Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, once a candidate fulfils the conditions under the Office Memorandum, they are entitled for appointment to Grade-IV post without resorting to any selection process. The very fact that this court in the earlier rounds of litigation directed for open advertisement meant that the claim of the present writ petitioners for appointment on the basis of landownership in terms of the policy framed by the State Government has not been accepted by this Court. Hence, their contention for consideration of their cases for appointment on landownership basis in terms of the policy framed by the State Government in the interview process is totally misconceived. 23. It is stated that the respondent Department has issued the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 in compliance with the Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by this Court. The present petitioners along with Shri Keyikieteing approached this Court by filing WP(C)/160/2024 challenging the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024. 23. It is stated that the respondent Department has issued the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 in compliance with the Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by this Court. The present petitioners along with Shri Keyikieteing approached this Court by filing WP(C)/160/2024 challenging the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024. The said writ petitioner was disposed of by the Order dated 06.11.2024 by setting aside the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 and the State respondents were directed to publish a fresh Advertisement with a condition amongst other eligibility criteria that landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment. Thereafter, the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025 was issued and in the said Advertisement applications were invited to fill up 5 (five) Grade-IV posts in the District Hospital, Peren by indigenous inhabitants of Peren District. Amongst others, one relevant condition is that an interview will be conducted on 26.03.2025 from 11.00 AM onwards in the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare. The candidates were also directed to bring in original their relevant documents to prove their academic qualification and their Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. Subsequently, the Interview was conducted by the Selection Committee on 26.03.2025. The Private respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 appeared before the Selection Committee along with the requisite documents as prescribed under Condition No. 6 of the said Advertisement. The Selection Committee duly verified their documents and interview was conducted and basing on their overall performance they were recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment to the aforesaid Grade-IV posts. In terms of the conditions prescribed in the Advertisement dated Nil March 2025, the Selection Committee conducted an oral interview wherein the writ petitioners appeared without any protest. Therefore, after taking a chance in the said selection process, and by accepting the terms and conditions prescribed in the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025, now on being unsuccessful, they cannot turn around and challenge the said selection process contending that the oral interview is only a test of personality of the candidates and that it cannot determine the merit of the candidates in the absence of any written exam. 24. 24. Learned counsel further submits that the preferential treatment to be given to the landowners and their family members as incorporated in the Advertisement dated Nil March 2025 cannot be interpreted to mean that landowners had a preferential right to be considered for appointment automatically, and the said preferential treatment can only be invoked when all other requirements are equal. As per the overall assessment of marks scored by each candidate in their interview, the present writ petitioners did not come even in the zone of consideration with the Private respondents. Therefore, the present petitioners have no legal right to assail the selection and recommendation made by the Selection Committee and subsequent appointment of the Private respondents by resorting to the claim that preferential treatment is to be given to the landowners. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners have also raised the objection that the Interview Board/Selection Committee was constituted in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2026; however, the petitioners had not urged the illegality of the Board anywhere in the writ petition and, therefore, facts not pleaded cannot be interfered with by this Court. 25. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 to 11 has relied on the following authorities in support of his submissions: i. Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary Versus Sandeep Sharma Warade and Others and other connected appeals reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 ii. Bibhudatta Mohanty Versus Union of India And Others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 16 , iii. Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. And Another Versus Dr. Anita Puri And Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 282 26. By relying on the above authorities, the learned counsel has submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to mean that “preference” means that all landowners will be automatically entitled to be selected and appointed. It is only in a case where if a landowner and a general candidate get equal marks then the landowner will be given a “preference” and not as construed by the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore submits that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 27. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel, therefore submits that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 27. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The pleadings have been perused and the authorities relied upon by the parties have also been examined. 28. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are the land donors of the Peren District Headquarters. The Conditions for appointment on landownership basis has been set out by the Government of Nagaland in the Office Memorandum No. L.R/LAND-PLCY/5-26/2011 dated 16.08.2018. The Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018 clearly does not envisage any selection process. Further, the petitioners did not prefer any appeal against the common Order dated 12.02.2024 passed in WP(C)/19/2023 and the order dated 12.02.2024 has attained finality. As no appeal was preferred against the direction for a selection process it is implied that the petitioners had agreed to face an interview process. When this Court passed the direction in WP(C)/19/2023, it was directed that the State respondents shall initiate a fresh process for filling up the vacancies in the Grade-IV posts at District Hospital, Peren by inviting applications from all “interested and eligible persons” to apply for the same. It is to be understood that all eligible landowners as well as non-landowners could apply for the said posts in pursuance of the Advertisement. When the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 was assailed by the petitioners in WP(C)/160/2024, this Court did not find any illegality in the eligibility criteria set out in the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 but the only direction was that the State respondents should publish a fresh advertisement, adding another condition amongst other conditions regarding eligibility, that the landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. Accordingly, all the other conditions remained the same and only the condition that “landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment” was added in the fresh Advertisement dated Nil March 2025. Accordingly, all the other conditions remained the same and only the condition that “landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment” was added in the fresh Advertisement dated Nil March 2025. The condition that an applicant should be an indigenous inhabitant of the concerned district was also one of the eligibility criteria in the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024 as well as the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025, Accordingly all indigenous inhabitants of Peren District applied for the post, including the petitioners and the private respondents. The fact that the Private respondents are also indigenous inhabitants of Peren District is not denied. 29. Having accepted the conditions in the Advertisement dated Nil, March 2025, and having applied for the aforementioned 5 (five) Grade-IV posts, the petitioners also appeared for the Selection process. One of the conditions in the Advertisement dated Nil March 2025 was that an interview will be conducted on 26.03.2025. Knowing fully well that it is an oral interview, the petitioners appeared for the same. On being unsuccessful in the said selection process, the petitioners have approached this Court. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that “preference” operates only when candidates are otherwise equal or nearly equal in merit. It is a tie-breaker and not a substitute for merit. “Preference” is not the same as reservation or additional marks/weightage. In the cases relied upon by the respondent nos. 8 to 11 the Supreme Court has held that “preference” means priority among equals and not supersession of the meritorious candidates. Therefore, a landowner can only get an advantage if the mark is equal or nearly equal to each other. But they cannot leap frog over a higher scoring candidate unless the recruitment rules explicitly permits that. In the case of Secretary, AP Public Service Commission Vrs Y.V.V.R Srinivasulu & Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341 , the Supreme Court held: “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. 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 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 consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. 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 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 irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. If it is to be viewed the way the High Court and 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 does not possess the additional qualification. If it is to be viewed the way the High Court and 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 does not possess the additional qualification. Assuming for consideration without even accepting the same to be right or 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 respondents for the mere asking only on the basis of the interpretation of the provision to some one who came to court, ignoring the fact that those before the court at any rate in spite of the view taken do 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”. 31. Therefore, the petitioners claim that they should be given “preference”, even if they had scored lower marks than the successful candidates, is totally misconceived. The petitioners having agreed to face a selection process and having participated in the selection process willingly and after having failed to qualify, they cannot turn around and challenge the selection process or challenge the recommendation and appointment of the Private respondents. 32. As a result, the selection process and the appointment of the Private respondents is not interfered with and the writ petition is dismissed as bereft of merit. Before parting with the records it may be mentioned that the claim of the petitioners being land donors is not disputed, and the dismissal of this writ petition will not be a bar for the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners cases for appointment strictly on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018, in any future Grade-IV vacancies that may arise, if so advised.