WA 293/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTG.) MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge qua shing the appointment of the appellant as Graduate Teacher (Arts.) in Gobinda Mi sra Ashram Tol, Belsor and allowing consequential benefits of appointment to the writ petitioner from the date he has been given the appointment i.e., 9.8.2010. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 7.10.2009 for appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher (Arts.), the appellant and the writ petitioner offered their c andidature. The selection process was held in which the writ petitioner was sele cted. The appellant was placed down below in the select list and he scored only 17.94 marks as against 28.56 marks secured by the writ petitioner. In spite of t his being the position, the appellant was given appointment by the Deputy Dire ctor, Sanskrit Education, which led the writ petitioner to file writ petition in this Court. The defence taken on the behalf of the State was that the Chairman and some othe r members of the Selection Committee had not signed the statement of marks and t hus, the selection of the writ petitioner had not been formalized and appointmen t of the appellant was valid. The learned Single Judge held that the appointment of the appellant was vitiated having been made solely on the basis of the recommendation of the concerned Min ister without considering the selection process, wherein he was not found to hav e been selected for appointment. However, during the pendency of the writ petiti on, in terms of the interim direction for consideration of the case of the petit ioner, the writ petitioner was given appointment vide letter dated 9.8.2010 subj ect to the result of the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if his appointment is vitiat ed, the writ petitioner could not have been given the appointment as the Chairma n and some other members of the Selection Committee had not signed the statement of marks. We are unable to accept this submission. The learned Single Judge after due cons ideration, recorded the following finding:- As recorded in the order dated 22.7.2010, although a stand was sought to be tak en that the Chairman of the Selection Committee did not sign the statement of ma rks but the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, Education, clearly revealed that the said Chairman has signed the minutes of the Selection Committ ee as well as the Managing Committee by which the recommendations had been made for appointment on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the sele ction. Accordingly, direction was issued to the Deputy Director to take necessar y follow up action on the basis of the minutes of the Selection Committee follow ed by the resolutions adopted by the said Committee and the School Managing Comm ittee. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the minutes of the Selec tion Committee were duly signed by the Chairman and majority of members. His onl y objection is that the statement of marks was not signed. Once the minutes were signed which contains recommendation for appointment of the writ petitioner, it cannot be held that there was any error in selection of the writ petitioner. In any case, on due consideration, the Deputy Director, Sanskrit Education has giv en the appointment during pendency of the writ petition. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding re corded by learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.