JUDGMENT 1. - These two special appeals arise out of the judgement passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 598/93 dated 13.08.1997 the petitioner who was a holder of Graduate degree in Agriculture in first division was not selected. The qualification prescribed for the post of Agriculture Supervisor was the Senior Higher Secondary or the Senior Secondary. The only ground of challenge in the petition was that the eligibility criteria prescribed under Rule for the said post was the B.Sc. and the advertisement issued giving eligibility criteria to be only Senior Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary was contrary to the Rules and therefore, selection based on that were invalid. It was pointed out by the State that before the advertisement was issued there has been amendment in the criteria for eligibility and the eligible education qualification for the post has been lowered to 10+2. In these circumstances no case for holding selection contrary to Rules was made out. However, the learned Judge has referred to the fact that while the marks in the minimum qualification required for eligibility has been taken into consideration, no weightage has been given to the Higher qualification and on this premise the court was of the view that when in the method of selection while allocating the marks, the marks obtained in the Senior Higher Secondary and Senior Secondary examinations has been taken into consideration, no marks for higher qualification has been given which was not fair. With these findings the court further found that since in persuance of uniform criterion applied to all the candidates selections have been made and 900 persons have already been appointed, it would not be possible to grant any relief to the petitioner by quashing the selection and any of the appointments. However, the court directed to make selection in future on that basis. 2. Aggrieved with that the said judgement the petitioner as well as the respondent have preferred these two appeals, the petitioner for getting of the relief and the respondent State against the directions issued to them to apply the criterion for selecting that candidates by providing additional marks for higher qualification also. 3. 2. Aggrieved with that the said judgement the petitioner as well as the respondent have preferred these two appeals, the petitioner for getting of the relief and the respondent State against the directions issued to them to apply the criterion for selecting that candidates by providing additional marks for higher qualification also. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties we are of the opinion that once it was found that there was no defect in the advertisement in laying down the minimum eligibility criterion and the ground raised against invalidity of the selection has failed, and there was no requirement in the Rule for giving weight age for different levels of attainment in higher education, there was no occasion for examining the question of providing additional criterion for making selection for the post for which minimum qualification prescribed is only Senior Higher Secondary or Senior Secondary. That is the matter of policy to be laid by the State. The criteria applied for the selection has never been in challenge. If the eligibility criteria advertised was correct. In the absence of necessary material and challenge the court was not justified in setting aside process of selecting the candidates which was in accordance with and by applying the eligibilty criteria as per Rules. 4. In these circumstances the appeal filed by the State succeeds and that by the petitioner fails. There shall be no order as to costs.State Appeal Allowed Private Appeal Dismissed. *******