JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. As a counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit have been filed, we are deciding this writ petition at the admission stage. 2. The sole question to be determined in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to a House Job in medicine in L. L R. and Associated Hospital, Kanpur. The petitioner has not been given appointment. 3. The petitioner did his M. B. B S. and his percentage of marks was 53.678 with one failure. Consequently, in accordance with the Government order dated 23-12-1977, while determining the merits, his percentage has to be reduced by one percent. The effective percentage of the petitioner comes to 52.678. 4. Certain post of House Jobs were vacant in the Medical College. The petitioner applied for appointment to a House Job. As required, he gave various preferences. His preference for medicine was higher while his preference for Radiotherapy (Cancer) was lower. Persons with a higher merits were selected and consequently, the petitioner did not qualify and was not appointed to a House Job in medicine, but was given the House Job in Radiotherapy (Cancer), which he also sought. 5. Subsequently, certain vacancies in House Jobs (medicine) arose. The petitioner applied for appointment to a House Job, but he was not being considered for a House Job. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court being Civil Misc. Writ petition No. (9) of 1987, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar v. Chief Medical Superintendent, L. L. R. and associated hospital, Kanpur, and others, which was decided on 24-2-1987. 6. In its judgment in the writ petition, the court observed that the petitioner had offered that if he was selected for appointment to a House Job in medicine, he was prepared to forgo his appointment in a House Job in Radiotherapy (Cancer). In view of this statement of the petitioner, the court made following operative order : "In the circumstances we think it proper that his case may also be considered by the authorities for admission in other discipline which are now lying vacant. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear at the interview to be held on 27-2-1987 and also to consider his case for admission in House Job in other disciplines in accordance with merit." 7. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear at the interview to be held on 27-2-1987 and also to consider his case for admission in House Job in other disciplines in accordance with merit." 7. In pursuance of the orders of this court, the petitioners case was also taken up alongwith the case of others on 27-2-1987. The committee again did not select the petitioner. The reasons given by the committee for not selecting the petitioner are contained in Annexure CA - 1 to the counter affidavit, which is a copy on the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 27-2-1987. They are (i) that the petitioner having been selected for House Job in Radiotherapy (Cancer) for six months, he could not be permitted to change his houseman ship and this condition was laid down in the petitioners letter of appointment; (ii) that the committee did not find the petitioner qualified for a House Job ; and (iii) that a writ petition by Dr. Ranveer Singh had earlier been dismissed by the High Court in similar circumstances, and, consequently, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, was not given a House Job. 8. In the counter affidavit, in is not denied that in the second selection held on 27-2-1987 persons have been selected for a House Job in medicine who have a position lower than the petitioner in merits. In other words, persons with a percentage of marks lower than the petitioner were selected for appointment to a House Job in medicine. 9. We have perused the Government order No. 1254 Se - /V - Ke - 111/74 dated 29-12-1977 issued by Sri Laxmi Kant Nagar, Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, U.P. Government, which governs the selection for a House Job. According to the Government order, in selecting a medical practitioner for a House Job his M. B. B. S. marks have to be taken in account and the manner for calculating the marks are laid down. It specifies that if a candidate has failed in one subject, one percent of marks will be deducted from his marks while preparing the merit list. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled to be selected for the House Job in medicine. 10. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the selection in House Job is not entirely based on merits. In this situation, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled to be selected for the House Job in medicine. 10. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the selection in House Job is not entirely based on merits. The paragraph goes on - "The Medical Council of India in their recommendations have provided that - Evaluation of Merit The Postgraduate Committee was of the opinion that in order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to postgraduate medical courses. (i) Vis performance at the M. B. B. S. Examinations ; (ii) his performance during the course of internship and houseman ship for which a daily assessment chart be maintained ; and (iii) the report of the teacher which is to be submitted periodically may be considered." 11. The suggestion in the counter affidavit is that the merits meaningpercentage of marks, is not the sole criteria for the selection of a candidate for a House Job. This statement. in the counter affidavit is in flat contradiction of what is laid down in the Government order of 1977, which specifically states that the admission must be done on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in strict order of merits. 12. We are surprised and reject to note that in the counter affidavit the method of evaluation of merits, which is prescribed for admission to postgraduate diploma and degree courses, has been treated as applicable to selection of a candidate for a House Job. The two criteria are on record there was an attempt to mislead the court. 13. In the criteria for evaluation of merits, quoted above, one of the conditions prescribed is that the performance of a candidate during his internship and houseman ship has to be taken into account which, on the face of it, cannot be done till a candidate has already been selected for a House Job. 14. As regards the dismissal of the petition of Dr. Ranveer Singh, that is hardly material. 15. Fortunately, in this case, one Dr. Vineet Bhushan resigned from the House Job in medicine and the House Job was vacant. The petitioner obtained an order from this court dated 14-5-1987 to the effect that a post shall be kept vacant, Consequently, no one will be disturbed if the petitioner is selected and appointed to a House Job in medicine. 16. Vineet Bhushan resigned from the House Job in medicine and the House Job was vacant. The petitioner obtained an order from this court dated 14-5-1987 to the effect that a post shall be kept vacant, Consequently, no one will be disturbed if the petitioner is selected and appointed to a House Job in medicine. 16. We may add that the condition imposed while giving an appointment to a candidate in a House Job, may have specified that he shall not be allowed to change his course for six months, cannot take away t he right of the petitioner to be appointed on merits to a House Job of his choice, provided he fulfils the requisite qualifications and his position is such in the order of merits as would entitle him appointment to a House Job in another subject. The condition cannot apply in case whether after the initial selection, the selected candidate did not join and post has against to be filled up. 17. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to appoint to petitioner to a House Job in medicine. 18. A copy of this order will be given to the petitioner within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.