JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - Petitioner, Dr. Siddharth Nirupam, is aggrieved by selection of Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, opposite party No. 5 for appointment to the post of Demonstrator in the department of Social and Preventive Medicine in supersession of his claim. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner passed MBBS examination from King George's Medical College, in the year 1978, obtaining 61.06 per cent marks. Thereafter the petitioner did one year Internship and completed one year of Housemanship from the same college. On 1.4.1982 the petitioner was appointed, it is not disputed, in the aforementioned department. It is not disputed between the parties that appointment to the post is made on yearly basis. On 22.4.1982 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the said post. The petitioner was one of the candidates. Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, opposite party No. 5, also applied for the said post. Finally, the petitioner was not selected but Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, opposite party No. 5, was selected. Aggrieved by this selection, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that in view of the conditions disclosed in the advertisement, Annexure No. 1, the selection was to be made on the basis of merit and the petitioner's merit being higher than that of Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, opposite party No. 5, he was entitled to be selected, but the Medical College authorities arbitrarily selected Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi, opposite party No. 5. In paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has indicated that while he had obtained 61.06 per cent marks in the MBBS examination, opposite party No. 5 had obtained only 59.87 per cent marks. This position has not been disputed on behalf of the Medical College. 4. On behalf of the Medical College the petition has been resisted on the ground that the appointment to the post of Demonstrator is made in order to provide assistance to the students undergoing post graduate degree course and since the petitioner has already completed that course he was not considered. In support of this plea the opposite parties have relied upon a resolution adopted by the Selection Committee, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. Al to the affidavit filed by thepetitioner in support of his application (Civil Misc. Application No. 7310 (w)/83). 5. In support of this plea the opposite parties have relied upon a resolution adopted by the Selection Committee, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. Al to the affidavit filed by thepetitioner in support of his application (Civil Misc. Application No. 7310 (w)/83). 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that this resolution was adopted after the advertisement had already been issued and, therefore, it could not be taken into consideration for making the present selection. In any case, he has argued, the Medical College authorities have not stuck even to this resolution inasmuch as they appointed certain candidates to the post of Demonstrator although they had completed their post graduate Degree Course. Learned Counsel, therefore, argued that the action of the Medical College authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, it is liable to be struck down. In support of the plea, affidavit dated 11.11.1983 was filed by the petitioner, a copy of which was supplied to the learned counsel for the Medical College on 14.11.1983. However, on behalf of the Medical College authorities no counter affidavit was filed either to the writ petition or to this affidavit. In paragraph No. of the affidavit it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that one Dr. Rajni Singh completed and passed MD examination in the month of June 1983 and thereafter she was appointed Demonstrator by order dated 30th September, 1983. Learned counsel for the Medical College did not dispute this fact. In paragraph No. 3 to 5 certain other instances of similar appointments have been given. Learned counsel for the Medical College tried to explain the instances mentioned in the said paragraphs. In view of the fact that the averments made in paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit dated 11.11.1983 have not been disputed, it is apparent that the University authorities have acted with discrimination in not selecting the petitioner for the post of Demonstrator. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ, direction and order in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Demonstrator in the vacancy which they advertised on 22.4.1983 through Annexure No. 1. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and a writ, direction and order in the nature of mandamus is issued to the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Demonstrator in the vacancy which they advertised on 22.4.1983 through Annexure No. 1. Since we have found that the action of the Medical College was arbitrary, we direct that the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 shall pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. (Petition allowed)