CWP No.600 of 2009 12.3.2009 Present: Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Shri R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 19.4.2008, 27.5.2008 and order passed by the Enquiry Committee dated 10.10.2008 and by the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.12.2008. For the sake of arguments, even if we accept the preposition of the petitioner that the guidelines laid down by notification dated 19.4.2008 and 27.5.2008 cannot be applied retrospectively the fact remains that the appointments by the PTA should have been on merit. There can be no quarrel with this preposition. Merit should be the sole or at least the prime criteria while making such appointments. From a perusal of the record which should have been perused by the PTA at the time when the appointments were made, it is apparent that the private respondent No.4 was much higher in merit. The petitioner had 48.42% marks in matric whereas respondent Pink Raj obtained 62%. In 10+2, the petitioner had 47% marks whereas the respondent had 63%. Similarly, in graduation, the petitioner had only 47% marks whereas respondent had 61% marks. In B.Ed, the petitioner had 55.6% marks whereas the respondent had 67% marks. In M.A, the petitioner had 40.5% marks whereas the respondent had obtained 56% marks. In addition thereto, the respondent also had qualified M.Phil. In such circumstances, the marks in the viva given to the petitioner are highly excessive and the Committee rightly set aside his selection. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge March 12, 2009(m) (V.K.Ahuja), Judge