Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The question involved in these three writ petitions relates to the manner of selection of candidates to the post of School Assistant Grade II as against Sports Quota. The petitioner in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 and W.P.No.14236 of 2008 were participants in National Level Sports and were medalists. The petitioner in W.P.No.17224 of 2008 had obtained 4th placement in National Level Sports Championship. The private Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.No. 14410 of 2008 were also participated in different National Level Championship. The Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 (Respondents 4 to 8 in W.P.No.14236 of 2008 were selected on the basis that they had secured more marks in the qualifying examination. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions challenged their non-selection, by filing Original Applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its common order dated 25.04.2008 has observed as follows:- "10. After considering the arguments of both sides, we are of the view that though the orders of this Tribunal cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are squarely applicable to the case of the applicants herein, on perusal of the records relating to the selection made under the MSP quota furnished by the respondents, it is clear that all the candidates selected i.e. Respondents 3 to 7 as well as the applicants only represented and participated in the National level games and obtained Meritorious sports person certificates. Admittedly, the respondents 3 to 7 secured more percentage of marks than the applicants and further the post is a teaching post which requires more efficiency in the subjects. We also do not find any infirmity in the selection of the respondents 3 to 7 when the relative merits are equal in sports and especially when the applicants do not have any outstanding performance over the selected candidates. Though, we hold that the procedure adopted by the respondents in making the selection as per the marks obtained in the academic qualifications for the MSP quota are wrong, on verification of the records, the applicants do not possess any eminent performance in sports to overlook the claim of the selected candidates under MSP. Hence all these applications fail and dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs." (Emphasis added by us). 3. Hence all these applications fail and dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs." (Emphasis added by us). 3. The main contention raised by the petitioners in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 and 14236 of 2008 is that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 5. 1995, a person who had secured a medal in a National Level Championship is to be given preference for appointment, as compared to the persons who had merely participated in National Level Championship and applying such method, since the two petitioners concerned had secured medals, they should have been selected ahead of the other selected candidates. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Pondicherry as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 (Respondents 6 to 8 in W.P.No.14236 of 2008) submitted that as per the Scheme of the Office Memorandum as well as the specific advertisement which was issued on 7. 2005, the person who is more meritorious should be selected and therefore the selection process is correct. 5. The relevant portion of the Office Memorandum No.14034/1/95-Estt.(D), dated 5. 1995 is extracted hereunder :- " . . . 2. In order to facilitate proper selection of sportspersons, it has been decided that sportspersons who fulfill the eligibility conditions laid down in para.1 of this Department, OM, dated 4-8-1980, referred to above shall be considered in the following order of preference:- .(a) First preference to those candidates who have represented the country in an International Competition with the clearance of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports. .(b) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a State / UT in the Senior or Junior Level National Championships organized by the National Sports Federations recognized by Department of Youth Affairs and Sports or National Games organized by Indian Olympics Association and have won medals or positions up to 3rd place. Between the candidates participating in Senior and Junior National Championships/Games, the candidates having participated and won medal in Senior National Championship should be given preference. .(c) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a University in an Inter-University competition conducted by Association of Indian Universities/Inter-University Sports Board and have won medals or positions up to 3rd place in finals. .(c) Next preference may be given to those who have represented a University in an Inter-University competition conducted by Association of Indian Universities/Inter-University Sports Board and have won medals or positions up to 3rd place in finals. (d) Next preference may be given to those who have represented the State Schools in the National Sports/Games for Schools conducted by the All India School Games Federation and have won medals or positions up to 3rd place. .(e) Next preference may be given to those who have been awarded National Award in physical efficiency under National Physical Efficiency Drive. .(f) Next preference may be given to those, who represented State/Union Territory/University/State School Teams at the level mentioned in categories (b) to (d) but could not win a medal or position, in the same order of preference. . . ." 6. A reading of the Office Memorandum dated 5. 1995 clearly indicates that the candidates in a particular category are required to be considered ahead of the other category. Of course, if number of candidates are available in a particular category, the ultimate selection would depend upon the relative merit. However, it is apparent that the candidates in a particular category are required to be considered in exclusion of a lower category. In other words, exclusion is on the basis of the extent of achievement. If the said Office Memorandum is so considered, the two petitioners who had secured medals were obviously to be considered ahead of the other candidates who had merely participated in the National Level Championship. It is of course true that as per the method of selection the selection has to be on the basis of the merits which means the persons similarly placed more meritorious is to be selected. Applying the above method, we find that the two petitioners in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 and 14236 of 2008 should have been selected. 7. Learned counsel appearing for all the parties have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1987 Supp. SCC 329 (Khallid Hussain Commissioner V. Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu). The ratio of the said decision does not lay down anything contrary to what has been indicated by us. Moreover, the Office Memorandum, dated 5. 1995, was not available to be considered when the aforesaid decision was rendered. 8. SCC 329 (Khallid Hussain Commissioner V. Secretary To Government Of Tamil Nadu). The ratio of the said decision does not lay down anything contrary to what has been indicated by us. Moreover, the Office Memorandum, dated 5. 1995, was not available to be considered when the aforesaid decision was rendered. 8. It is not in dispute that there are only 5 vacancies for appointment against the Sports Quota. Applying the method of selection indicated in the Office Memorandum, we find that the petitioner in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.14236 of 2008 are to be selected ahead of the other candidates. 9. In course of hearing it transpired that Respondent Rajan George had been selected on his own merit and it was not required to consider him as a candidate against Sports Quota. Accordingly out of 5 persons to be selected under Sports Quota, the two petitioners viz., petitioner in W.P.No.14410 of 2008 and petitioner in W.P.No.14236 of 2008 are to be selected ahead of other Respondents. Respondent Rajan George need not be considered against Sports Quota. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.14410 and 14236 of 2008 are allowed. 10. So far as the petitioner S. Sivakumar in W.P.No.17224 of 2008 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that as the petitioner had secured fourth placement in National Championship, as per the method adopted by the department, he should be given preference. However, he is not in a position to bring to our attention any specific instructions to that effect. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, stated that there is no such specific instruction. In the absence of any specific instructions we are not able to accept the contentions of the petitioner in W.P.No.17224 of 2008. However, if there is any such instruction we have no hesitation in stating that the person who was given placement may be considered by the department and preference can be given to such person. W.P.No.17724 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.