1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.773/2008 Suresh s/o Janraoji Wankhede Vs. Mah. Animal & Fishery Science University Nagpur and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mrs. U.A. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv. for respondent no.2. Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 14th October, 2008. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance raised in this petition is regarding non- selection of the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer under the respondent no.1-University. The petitioner contends that he being more meritorious than respondent nos.2 and 3, he ought to have been selected and appointed to the post of Junior Engineer. He further contends that he possesses a diploma in Civil Engineering as well as a degree in the same discipline and, therefore, as per him, he ought to have been given separate weightage to the degree qualification as well as diploma qualification. If he had been given three marks as allocated for the diploma qualification, he ought to have scored more marks than respondent no.2 and thus got selected. Respondent no.1 has filed reply and also placed on 2 record the copies of advertisement as well as the selection process record. We have noted that the petitioner has been given marks for the degree in Engineering and he has also given marks as he is first-class degree holder. He has not been given three marks for his diploma qualification and we do not find any illegality in the same. Admittedly, the degree and diploma qualifications possessed by the petitioner are from the same discipline and if he has been given marks for the degree qualification, we do not see any reason as to why he should be given separate weightage for diploma qualification unless such a qualification is from a different faculty like electrical or mechanical etc. Having gone through the assessment sheet, we are satisfied that respondent no.1 has considered the merit in the selection process and respondent nos.2 and 3 who have secured more marks than the petitioner have been appointed. No interference is, therefore, called for in the appointments made by respondent no.1-University. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.