Judgement LODHA, C. J. :- Both these Civil Rules can be disposed of by a single order as they are directed against a common order dated 31-8-77 by the Government of Assam functioning as an appellate authority under S.9 of the Assam Excise Act, 1910 in respect of settlement of a Country Spirit Shop called "No. 14 Dillighat Country Spirit Shop". 2. It appears that the shop was settled by the Primary Settling Authority in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, by his order dated 7-2-76. Dissatisfied with this order, three bidders, namely Kuladhar Bharali, Subodh Kumar Konwar and Girin Rajkonwar filed three separate appeals before the Government of Assam. Kuladhar Bharalis appeal was dismissed in default. He has not approached this Court. Subodh Kumar Konwars appeal was allowed. The settlement in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, was set aside and the shop was settled in favour of Subodh Kumar Konwar. Girin Rajkonwars appeal was also dismissed. Consequently, Chandra Kanta Arandhara and Girin Rajkonwar have approached this Court by separate petitions, which have been registered as Civil Rules Nos. 270 and 291 of 1977, respectively. 3. Mr. D.K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, has submitted that the very premises on which the impugned order is passed are incorrect. He submits that merely because his client was not a Matriculate, he was not disqualified from getting the shop settled in his favour because the law, then, in force did not require the person in whose favour the shop is to be settled must be a Matriculate. On the other hand, all that was envisaged was that the person must be an educated unemployed youth. He submits that his client has read up to Matriculation even though not passed the Matriculation Examination and, therefore, he must be deemed to be educated. In this connection, he has also argued that even though his client was a Salesman at the time of submission of the tender, he had given up the job at the time of settlement and, therefore, he should have been treated as an educated unemployed youth. Learned counsel, however, failed to lay his hands on any provision of law or a decided case wherein it has been held that a person would be considered to be educated even though he has not passed Matriculation. Learned counsel, however, failed to lay his hands on any provision of law or a decided case wherein it has been held that a person would be considered to be educated even though he has not passed Matriculation. It is correct that the Government of Assam, by a Notification No. Ex. 144/72/Pt/8 dated 28th Oct., 1977, defined the term educated unemployed youth as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of R.223 of the Assam Excise Rules a person not exceeding 35 years of age who has passed the H.S.L.C. or its equivalent Examination and is without any employment. But, for that reason, we are unable to hold that, if prior to that Notification the same standard was employed by the Government for judging whether a person was educated or not, the authority had committed any error of law. The standard adopted by the authority in the impugned order that since Chandra Kanta Arandhara had not passed Matriculation, he could not be considered to be an educated unemployed youth, cannot be said to be a perverse finding. 4. It is admitted that Chandra Kanta Arandhara was a Salesman at the time of submission of the tender. Nothing concrete has been placed before us to show as to when he gave up this job. But, apart from that, learned counsel has failed to satisfy us that the question: Whether a person is employed or unemployed must be judged not with reference to the date of submission of the tender but with reference to the date of settlement. Consequently, we are not in a position to hold that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner could not be considered as unemployed is patently wrong. In this view of the matter, if the settlement made in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara by the Primary Settling Authority was set aside, the appellate authority cannot be said to have committed any error of law or any other manifest error in exercise of its jurisdiction. So far as Subodh Kumar Konwar is concerned, he is admittedly a Matriculate and is thus an educated person. He is also employed. As we shall presently show, his financial position has also been duly considered. 5. As to the Civil Rule No. 291/77, the appellate authority has held that Girin Rajkonwars financial position was not sound inasmuch as he had only Rs. He is also employed. As we shall presently show, his financial position has also been duly considered. 5. As to the Civil Rule No. 291/77, the appellate authority has held that Girin Rajkonwars financial position was not sound inasmuch as he had only Rs. 2,064/65 P. to his credit in the Bank Account at the time of submission of his tender, whereas Subodh Kumar Konwar had Rs. 6,000 to his fathers credit in the Bank Account. In these circumstances, if the Appellate Authority chose Subodh Kumar Konwar in preference to Girin Rajkonwar on account of financial considerations, we cannot say that the appellate authority has fallen into any error of law. Consequently, we do not see any force in the petition filed by Girin Rajkonwar. 6. As already stated above, we also do not see substance in the petition filed by Chandra Kanta Arandhara, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, and both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, we dismiss both the petitions but make no order as to costs. 8. Before parting with the case we may here mention that the settlement is to expire on 31st March, 1979 and the petitioner Chandra Kanta Arandhara has been fortunate enough to enjoy the settlement for a major portion of the term in pursuance of the stay order granted by this Court. Ordinarily, we would have allowed him to continue, keeping in view the short period left, but at the same time, we feel that when the order passed by the Appellate Authority is legal and proper, there is no reason why the successful party should not be allowed to enjoy the settlement for the rest of the term. 9. The stay order is discharged and the authority concerned may be informed immediately. Petitions dismissed.