IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15781 of 2009 1. DINESH KUMAR VERMA S/O SRI RAM NARAYAN LAL VERMA, R/O VILL +P.O- SISAI, P.S + DISTT- SAHARSA 2. MANOJ KUMAR RAJAK, S/O SRI KISHAN RAJAK, R/O VILL- JAJAHAT SABELA, P.S- SINGHESHWAR, DISTT- MADHEPURA 3. RAJENDRA MALLIK, S/O SRI LAXMI MALLIK, R/O MOH- JAIL COLONY, SAHARSA, P.S + DISTT- SAHARSA 4. RAMU DAS S/O LATE AKSHAY LAL DAS R/O VILL- INDIRA NAGAR, DHANKHETI, P.O +P.S- GOGARI, DISTT- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, OF THE BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, SAHARSA, DISTT- SAHARSA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, SAHARSA, DISTT- SAHARSA ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State:- Mr. S. Rahman, Asstt. Counsel to S.C. No. 17. ------------------ 2. 21.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were contractual appointees under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in the District of Saharsa. An advertisement came to be issued for regular appointment on the post that they were working with no clause for preference by weightage of past works. Such provision was made in similar circumstances in the advertisement issued by Districts of Supaul and Banka. C.W.J.C. No. 9160 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner, claiming similar preference and weightage as in the aforesaid two Districts. This Court permitted them to represent when they were permitted to participate in the fresh selection process. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 was discharging duties on the computer even 2 during the contractual period and there was never any complaint and neither was his contractual appointment terminated for inefficiency. Likewise, petitioners 2 to 4 were also discharging the nature of duties which required them to move around on a bicycle. Similar submission has been made with regard to them also on discharge of their duties. To reject their claim now on their inability to compete was arbitrary. They cannot be denied preference and weightage to disqualify them. They are entitled to preferential consideration and appointment especially when there has been no complaint against them. Counsel for the State supported the impugned order to submit that direction of the Court has been complied with. Any appointment on a government post has to be in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution by open advertisement and selection. A contractual appointee is also entitled to participate and compete. What was his performance or capability as a contractual appointee was hardly relevant unless he qualified in the fresh section process on his own merit. Once he competes and is at par with the fresh selected candidates, the question of preference or weightage will arise. To hold that he has to be given preference in the selection itself notwithstanding the dismal performance during selection shall be contrary to the legal connotation of the word “ preference”. It has been held in 2006 SC 3080 State of U.P. & Anr. 3 Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. at Paragraph 16 that :- “17. This Court has consistently held that when selection is made on the basis of merit assessed through the competitive examination and interview, preference to additional qualification would mean other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those having additional qualification would be preferred. It does not mean en bloc preference irrespective of inter se merit and suitability.” It has been held that the question of giving preference arises when other things being equal. That is to say if two candidates are at par on all other issue, the candidate who had worked on contractual basis is to be preferred. Presently, the petitioners have failed to compete in the selection process, which this Court has already held above, they were obliged to do. Once they have failed to enter the arena of successful candidates, this Court finds it difficult to hold that merely on basis of their past contractual discharge of duties, they were entitled to preference as a matter of right to be given appointment. This Court finds no error in the impugned order dated 29.9.2009 warranting any interference. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)