JUDGMENT S.N. Jha and Afrab Alam, JJ. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 4, Dr. Jaideo Mishra, on the post of Lecturer in the Post Graduate Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology by notification of the Patna University dated 7.2.87, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition are these. On 28.5.86 the Bihar Stale University (Constituent College) Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') advertised four posts of Lecturers in the Post Graduate Department of Ancient Indian History and Archaeology. Out of these, one post was meant for general candidate and the other three were reserved for scheduled caste, economically backward class ('EBC' in short) and women candidates. The petitioner, respondent no. 4 and others submitted their applications. On 17.11.85 the Commission issued the programme of interview which was to take place category-wise. 15.12.86 was fixed for interview of eleven women candidates and one candidate of EBC, while 16.12.86 and 17.12.86 were fixed for interview of the general candidates, fourteen each in number. According to the petitioner, he was the only candidate belonging to EBC, who was called for interview on 15.12.86. He was recommended for appointment against that reserved post. However, the recommendation was later reversed and respondent no.4 was appointed against the said reserved post. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 never applied in EBC category and had been interviewed as a general category candidate on 17.12.86. 3. The Commission has filed counter-affidavit. As regards the candidature of respondent no. 4 a specific stand has been taken that he had applied under the EBC category and had, accordingly, filled in the prescribed column of the application form being column no. 8 (kha). A blank sample copy of the application is on the record as Annexure-2. As required, he had also on closed the eligibility certificate issued by an M.L.A. But due to inadvertence of the office of the Commission he was not called for interview on the date earmarked for candidates of the EBC category. Respondent no. 4 represented and his assertion was found to be correct and, accordingly, he was interviewed on 17.12.86 i.e. the date on which he had been called for interview. According to the Commission, respondent no. Respondent no. 4 represented and his assertion was found to be correct and, accordingly, he was interviewed on 17.12.86 i.e. the date on which he had been called for interview. According to the Commission, respondent no. 4 had also filed the income certificate granted by the Anchal Adhikari on the date of interview as an additional proof. It is common practice prevalent in the Commission to accept such proof of one's status at the time of interview and that was the requirement of the advertisement as well. The Commission denied that the name of the petitioner was ever recommended for appointment by the experts or the Commission. As per the procedure, each member makes his own assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates and submits his recommendation on the last date of interview. It is only thereafter that the Commission finalises the list and sends the recommendation to the University concerned. In the instant case the experts submitted the recommendation on 17.12.86 and the Commission finalised the list on 13.12.86 and sent its recommendation to the University the same day. 4. Respondent no. 4 has also filed a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits. He has denied the eligibility of the petitioner. He has also stated the circumstances in which he was not called for interview on 15.12.86 but on representation and after proper verification he was treated and interviewed as EBC candidate on 17.12.86. 5. We do not find any inconsistency and unnaturalness in the case placed by respondent no. 4 and supported by the Commission, an independent statutory body. Mr. Man Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, made a half-hearted attack on the veracity of the stand of the Commission but, in our view, there is not an iota of substance in the criticism. Respondent no. 4 had already indicated his 'status' as a candidate belonging to EBC category in the prescribed column of the application form and had also filed the certificate of an M.L.A. If the office of the Commission due to inadvertence on its part did not correctly classify the petitioner as an EBC candidate and treated him as a 'general' candidate, he cannot be made to suffer. The Commission showed good grace and undid the wrong at the appropriate time. That should be the end of the matter so far as this aspect is concerned. 6. The Commission showed good grace and undid the wrong at the appropriate time. That should be the end of the matter so far as this aspect is concerned. 6. Learned counsel, however, tried to find fault with the certificate of the M.L.A. and the income certificate of the Anchal Adhikari. It was submitted that on the date of the submission of the application for appointment respondent no. 4 was not a Ph. D but was described by the M.L.A. as 'Dr. Jaideo Mishra'. In his supplementary counter affidavit respondent no. 4 has stated that he had submitted the thesis in December 1985 and the expert had also submitted his report on 24. 5.86. Finally, he was awarded the degree on 30.9.86. If in that situation he was described as Mr. Jaideo Mishra on 16.6.86 by the M.L.A. the certificate can not be rejected. It has to be kept in mind that the object in granting the certificate was to mention the categorywise status of the person and not to describe his academic attainments. It was, perhaps, a bonafide statement made in anticipation of the grant of degree. 7. The income certificate granted by the Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-6) was also criticised. It was stated that the fat her of the petitioner was working as Senior Library Assistant drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1908/-. It is an admitted position as per the Government resolution of the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 10.12.78 (Annexure-D that those whose income is below the income tax exemption limit are deemed to be belonging to EBC category. In paragraph 5 of the supp1ementary counter affidavit dated 6.4.87 filed on 14.4.87 respondent no. 4 has categorically asserted that this father's annual income is below the income tax exemption limit. We, thus, do not find any substance in the plea that respondent no. 4 should not have been treated as a candidate belonging to the EBC category. 8. Mr. Man Mohan also made a vain attempt to challenge the appointment on the ground that respondent no. 4 does not possess the requisite academic qualification. It was pointed out that he was not a high second class and, therefore, not eligible. Mr. T. K. Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, rightly pointed out that foundational facts in this regard have not been pleaded. 4 does not possess the requisite academic qualification. It was pointed out that he was not a high second class and, therefore, not eligible. Mr. T. K. Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, rightly pointed out that foundational facts in this regard have not been pleaded. It appears from the writ petition that not a word has been stated about ineligibility of respondent no.4 on account of lack of academic qualification. It is only when respondent no. 4 challenged the eligibility of the petitioner that the statements were made in the rejoinder and the reply affidavits filed by the petitioner. As per the advertisement (Annexure-1) the candidate is deemed to be eligible if he possesses a Ph. D degree or second class or a high second class if he does not possess a Ph.d. It is true that on the date of advertisement i.e. 28.5.86 and on the last date of submission of applications i.e. 3.7.86 the petitioner did not possess Ph. D degree but he had mentioned this in his application that the expert already submitted the report on 24.5.86. If the Commission entertained the application and he came to possess the qualification on the date of interview, now this Court will not go into the question of the lack of qualification after lapse of six years of his appointment. Respondent no. 4 bas averred in the supplementary counter affidavit that he holds Masters degree not only in Ancient Indian History but also in History, Sociology and Education. He has also claimed to have done research work, which has been well commended by the expert. We are satisfied on these facts that he was suitable for appointment as Lecturer in the subject of Ancient Indian History and Archeology. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any infirmity in the appointment of respondent no. 4. This writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.