RAJES KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 26. 8. 2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the claim of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Junior Clerk has been denied. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10. 8. 1998, petitioner applied for the selection of Junior Clerk, Petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 13. 12. 1998. By call letter dated 5. 2. 1999, the petitioner was called to appear in the typing test on 13. 2. 1999 and the result of the written test was declared by the respondents. However, the petitioner has not been selected on the ground that on a consideration of the marks of the typing test which was considered to be the essential qualification, the petitioner did not qualify. Being aggrieved by the said action, petitioner filed the writ petition No. 7660 of 1999 with the contention that the qualification of the Hindi typing was preferential qualification and not essential qualification and the same could not be considered for the purposes of selection and the question for consideration of the preferential qualification may only come for consideration when the marks of two candidates become equal. This Court vide order dated 9. 9. 2005 has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview and got 6. 600 marks. The total marks obtained by the petitioner thus comes to 39. 00. However, petitioner has been denied selection by the impugned order on the ground that as per the Government Order Hindi Typing was essential qualification and by mistake in the advertisement it has been shown as preferential qualification and since the marks of nine candidates are higher than the petitioners marks, therefore, petitioner is not eligible for selection. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in the earlier writ petition has already held that Hindi typing qualification was only preferential qualification and not essential qualification and could be considered only in a situation when the two candidates could get equal marks. He submitted that the order of this Court has become final inasmuch as no appeal has been filed against the said order. He, however, referred paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition to show that on exclusion of the typing marks, the marks of the petitioner was higher than the other six candidates, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, Uma shankar Rakwar, Rajendra Sharan Rakwar, Shishupal, Vishnu Kumar and Santosh Kumar who obtained only 37. 265, 36. 40, 32. 265, 32. 355, 31. 70 and 30. 10 marks while the petitioner obtained 39. 00 marks excluding typing test and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for selection. He further submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavit which has been replied vide paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit. 5. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to dispute the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 13. He however, submitted that in the advertisement dated 10. 8. 1998 inadvertently the Hindi typing qualification has been shown as preferential qualification while it was the essential qualification and the selection was to be made after taking into account the marks of Hindi typing also and if the marks of the typing could be considered, the position of the petitioner was lower to the other candidates, who have been selected and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly not been selected. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999, Anoop Kumar Rathore v. Superintending Engineer and others, decided on 9. 9. 2005 held as follows: "in the present case,, the advertisement clearly provided for essential qualification and preferential qualification. Therefore, preference would come into play only if other quality marks of different candidates are equal. 7. This Court in Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999, Anoop Kumar Rathore v. Superintending Engineer and others, decided on 9. 9. 2005 held as follows: "in the present case,, the advertisement clearly provided for essential qualification and preferential qualification. Therefore, preference would come into play only if other quality marks of different candidates are equal. It is the petitioners case that on the basis of written examination his name was placed at serial No. 6 of the merit list of OBC category candidates therefore, he was required to be called for interview. The respondents have however taken a case that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification since he did possess the minimum typing speed therefore, he was not called for interview. It is also their case that Hindi typing was an essential qualification for the posts advertised and also according to the Rules of 1998. Since the advertisement as issued has not been denied and no corrigendum has been issued correcting the qualifications required for such posts this Court is of the view that the procedure for selection is governed by the Rules of 1998 and that Hindi typing was only a preferential qualification required for selection only if other marks of different candidates were equal. Therefore, the respondents who had declared the petitioner successful in the written test had to prepare a merit list thereof and invite the successful candidates for interview. It was only at that stage that preferential qualification of Hindi typing would play a part in the selection if marks of different candidates were otherwise equal. For the aforesaid reasons this writ petition deserves to be allowed. An interim order dated 26. 2. 1999 was passed in this writ petition wherein it was provided that the selection and appointment on the post of junior clerk pursuant to the advertisement dated 10. 8. 1998 shall be subject to the result of this writ petition. The respondent No. 1 is therefore, directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be held as per the provisions of the 1998 Rules and the Selection Committee/interview Board may consider the preferential qualification inter the successful candidates. Since the interview has already been held therefore, the respondent No. 1 shall make arrangement to interview the petitioner and make available the records of the interview already held before the Board for its due consideration. Since the interview has already been held therefore, the respondent No. 1 shall make arrangement to interview the petitioner and make available the records of the interview already held before the Board for its due consideration. This writ petition stands allowed as above. No order is passed as to costs". 8. The aforesaid order has become final inasmuch as it has not been shown that it has been challenged. This Court has already held that typing qualification was only preferential qualification and not essential qualification was only relevant when the two candidates get the equal marks. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to take the plea again that the typing qualification was the essential qualification. In the counter affidavit, paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition has not been disputed. 9. Perusal of the paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition shows that the petitioner has got 39 marks while other selected candidates, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, Uma shankar Rakwar, Rajendra Sharan Rakwar, Shishupal, Vishnu Kumar and Santosh Kumrobtained only 37. 265, 36. 40,32. 265,32. 355,31. 70 and 30. 10 marks lower than the petitioners marks and, therefore, the denial of the selection of the petitioner by the respondents is wholly unjustified. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26. 8. 2006 is set aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to give the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10. 8. 1998 forthwith preferably within a period of two weeks. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the appointment shall be given with prospective effect and the petitioner may not be entitled to claim any back wages. .