JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher. He remained unsuccessful. He has challenged the selection. 2. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner got 65.50 points whereas the last selected candidate obtained 67.39 points. It is on the basis of the above merit position, the petitioner could not be selected. 3. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order passed by this Court on 13th Sept., 2000. 4. For facility of reference, this order is being reproduced below: - "Although objections were treated as counter on the statement made by Mr. Bhatia but the question as to whether the eligibility criteria for the equivalence with each other is not dealt with. Mr. Pant appearing for respondent will file supplementary affidavit to clarify the equation with B.P.E. and B.P.Ed, within two weeks with a right to petitioner to file rejoinder within a week thereafter. The case be listed for hearing after three weeks." 5. The directions given in the above order have not been complied with and the respondent-Board has not furnished any information regarding the equation of qualification of B.P.E. with that of B.P. Ed. 6. The criteria which was adopted in the matter of selection is as under: - "Base: 50 points (To be determined by the marks obtained in C.P.Ed./B.P.Ed./3 years B.P.E./D.P.Ed.) B.P.Ed./3 yrs B.P.E./ D.P.Ed.: 20 Addl. points M.P.Ed.: 25 Addl. points National Sports Career 5 Addl. points Viva-voice 20 points Total 100 points" 7. A perusal of the above criteria adopted by the respondents indicates that B.P.Ed, three years and B.P.E./D.P.Ed. have been equated together and given 20 additional points. This equating together of a Degree and a Diploma was a matter on which additional information was sought. This information, as indicated above, has not been made available to this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Degree in the concerned field i.e. Bachelor of Physical Education cannot be equated with that of a Diploma. 9. There is apparent merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail by this Court in LPA (SW) 364/99, titled Balwinder Kour v. State and ors., decided on 18th Oct., 99. 9. There is apparent merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail by this Court in LPA (SW) 364/99, titled Balwinder Kour v. State and ors., decided on 18th Oct., 99. In the above case, the Letters Patent Bench observed that a person possessing a Degree in Education i.e. B.Ed, is entitled to be placed at a pedestal higher than a candidate who lacks this qualification. Accordingly, following directions were given by the Division Bench: i. That the allocation of 50 marks for 10+2 qualification is on the higher side; ii. That this allocation operates to the detriment of those candidates who possess Graduate and Post-Graduate qualification in the discipline of Education. This is not in confirmity with the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; iii. That the criteria is required to be recast; iv. That the appointments already made are not being quashed; v. That the appellant, would therefore, be entitled to be considered against a vacancy which is now available. She would not be denied appointment merely on the ground that she has become overage Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar Rout and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1989) 9 SCC 71 and Keshav Narayan Gupta and Ors. v. Jila Parishad Shivpuri and Ann, (1989) 9 SCC 78." 10. The position in this case is no diferent. A candidate possessing a B.P.Ed, degree is entitled to get preference over a diploma holder. The respondents are, therefore, directed to reconsider the entire matter. The distinction be made between a Degree and a Diploma on the basis of reasoning has been given by the State in Balwinder Kours case (supra) in B.Ed, degree and the same would be given in case of B.P.Ed, degree also. The claims of the petitioner shall be considered on the basis of that excess marking for B.P.Ed, degree. In doing so, the only variation which would be made shall be with regard to 20 additional points for this educational qualification only. If the respondents want to adopt the same criteria as they have adopted in the case of B.Ed, degree, they are at liberty to do so but that changed criteria would be applied to the selections which are to be made here in after. If the respondents want to adopt the same criteria as they have adopted in the case of B.Ed, degree, they are at liberty to do so but that changed criteria would be applied to the selections which are to be made here in after. If the respondents feel that in applying the changed criteria the marks which are fixed at 50 points as base are also required to be changed, then this marking be done with regard to all the candidates who have been selected and their merit would be re-assessed and then merit determined after that process would be given to the petitioner also. If any person who has already been selected happens to attain a lower merit, his appointment would not be disturbed.However,after completing the above process of re assessing the merito fall the candidates who have been selected including the petitioner, in case, he is able to come high up, then appropriate order of appointment would be issued in his favour. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondents by the petitioner and in case, as indicated above, after re-assessing the merit position on the basis of changed criteria, which re-assessment would be done in respect of all the candidates, the petitioner comes high up, then appointment order would be issued in his favour within a further period of one month. 11. Disposed of accordingly.