IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1432 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 737/2008) 1. Dr. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Deo Mangal Sharma R/O Vill.- Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Dhaka, Distt.- East Champaran ....Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur through Its Registrar 3. Vice Chancellor Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur 4. Dr. Bishnu Deo Singh S/O Late Munilal Singh R/O Vill.- Madhurapur, Via-Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur 5. Assistant Director (Recruitment) Rajendra Agriculture University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur .....Respondents ---------------------------------- For the appellant: Mr. Yogendra Mishra, advocate For the respondents: Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, advocate ---------------- 3 28-09-2011 Heard the parties and perused the order under appeal dated 3-8-2010 whereby several writ petitions including that preferred by the appellant have been considered and the petition of the appellant has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the first candidate having secured highest marks opted for another post, the authorities should have considered and appointed the appellant on the post of Training Associate in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Aurangabad in place of respondent no.4. 2 The writ court has noticed that the selection committee has awarded more marks to respondent no.4 as compared to the appellant/ writ petitioner. The writ court was not persuaded to interfere with the criteria adopted by the selection committee for grant of marks. We have also applied ourselves to the materials available on record. It disclose that criteria for award of marks for Ph. D degree with and without course work was adopted well in advance and the marks awarded to the appellant and respondent no.4 are as per said criteria. The issue of discrimination or hostile discrimination has been raised on behalf of the appellant but we do not find any merit in such submission because the selection committee in its wisdom decided to grant five marks for Ph. D degree and additional three marks for Ph. D degree with course work. It will not be proper for this court to substitute the criteria adopted by the selection committee with its own criteria. No question of hostile discrimination is involved in this case. The legal position in support of our aforesaid view is apparent 3 from the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H. L. Ramesh 2010 (3) PLJR 190. An attempt was made on behalf of appellant to rely upon a reply received by him under RTI Act on 24-10-2010 showing that he was wait listed no.1 candidate. According to learned counsel for the appellant the appellant should have been appointed as he was no.1 wait listed candidate. Learned counsel for the University has produced before us the original records which show that the selection committee consisting of eight members duly signed the marks sheet etc. including the final position of the candidates. The final placing shows that no.1 candidate has already been selected for other post. The same is the remark against yet another candidate, Alok Kumar and thereafter respondent no.4 was shown to be recommended and below him is the name of the appellant. Once respondent no.4 was shown to be recommended as fit for being appointed in July, 2007, the R.T.I. reply given in October, 2010 4 showing the appellant as wait listed no.1 candidate does not create any confusion and does not bestow any right of appointment upon him. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)