JUDGMENT S. K. Katriar, J. The petitioner of CWJC No.2533 of 2008 has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 3.8.2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the respondent authorities have been directed to examine the selection and appointment of respondent no.6. It maybe stated that the order of the learned single Judge disposed of other writ petitions also which are not before us. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present proceeding. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The Rajendra Agricultural University issued advertisement no.03/2004, which had been published on 2.2.2006, inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of Junior Scientist –cum-Assistant Professor (Plant Breeding). The appellant, as well as respondent nos. 6 to 11 were amongst those candidates for selection and appointment to the post. The University also issued another advertisement no.1/2006, which was published on 22.2.2006. This was in fact repetition of the said advertisement no.03/2004, was issued because more persons had become eligible in the meanwhile, and 5 PM of 31.3.2006 was the last date for receipt of applications. The application of respondent no.6 was received on 3.4.2006. The viva-voce test took place on 29.1.2007. The impugned panel showing selection of candidates in accordance with merit was published on 29.1.2007, according to which respondent no.6 was at Sl. no.3, and the appellant was at sl.no.4, of the merit list of the reserved category of Backward Classes. It is relevant to state that there were three posts of Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor as a result of which the appellant at sl. no.4 of the merit list of Backward Class category candidates was not issued with appointment letter leading to the writ petition. 3. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant belonged to the general category and his claim to be considered as reserved category was unfounded. She has further held that the application of respondent no.6 was received in the office of the University after 31.3.2006, the last date for receipt of applications. 3. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant belonged to the general category and his claim to be considered as reserved category was unfounded. She has further held that the application of respondent no.6 was received in the office of the University after 31.3.2006, the last date for receipt of applications. The learned single Judge, however, refused to interfere with his appointment because he belonged to the reserved category of Backward Class, whereas the appellant belonged to the category of unreserved/general category. In other words, according to the learned single Judge, even if the appointment of respondent no.6 were set aside, the petitioner would not be benefitted because the two belong to two different categories. However, she directed the authorities to examine the appointment of respondent no.6. The appellant had also raised the issue before the learned single Judge that respondent no.6 was not holder of Ph.D. degree on the date of the interview notwithstanding which he has been given the benefit of that degree during the course of evaluation. Though the learned single Judge has noted the submission, but has not decided the issue. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the original records of the connected CWJC No.2533 of 2006, as well as the judgment of the learned single Judge, that she had called for the original records from the University which had been produced and had also been made available to the learned counsel for the parties for inspection. It is evident on a perusal of the materials on record including the impugned panel dated 29.1.2007, that the appellant was a candidate for the reserved category of Backward Classes, was in fact considered as such, which indeed was his case. To that extent the learned single Judge has committed an error of record by observing in her order that the appellant was a candidate for the unreserved/general category and was considered as such. In that view of the matter, the first grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is chimerical and unfounded. We conclude that the appellant had applied for consideration as a candidate for the reserved category of Backward Class, and was indeed considered as such. 5. In that view of the matter, the first grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is chimerical and unfounded. We conclude that the appellant had applied for consideration as a candidate for the reserved category of Backward Class, and was indeed considered as such. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a serious grievance before us that, as per the terms of advertisement no.1/2006, the last date for receipt of applications was 31.3.2006 upto 5 PM, whereas the application of respondent no.6 was received on 31.4.2006. Counsel submits in the same vein that the terms of the advertisement stated in mandatory terms that no application beyond 31.3.2006 shall be entertained. The learned single Judge has dealt with this grievance and has come to the conclusion that the application of respondent no.6 was received after the last date, i.e. 31.3.2006. We have noticed hereinabove that the learned single Judge had the benefit of perusal of the original records and the same was made available to the learned counsel for the parties for inspection. By order dated 3.5.2011, the present Bench called for the original records from the University which has been produced before us after affording to the learned counsel for the parties the benefit of perusal of the same. We notice from the original records that the University had issued a corrigendum dated 15.5.2006, whereby the last date for submission of applications was extended upto 5 PM of 15.6.2006. The same had been published in the issue dated 16.5.2006 of Dainik Jagran, a popular daily newspaper. It is thus evident on a perusal of the original records, which was produced before the learned single Judge as well, that the last date for submission of applications was extended upto 15.6.2006. It appears that the corrigendum was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. We, therefore, conclude that the application of respondent no.6 having been received on 3.4.2006, his application was in time. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant about late filing of respondent no.6 is rejected. 6. We should at this stage consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appeal is to be disposed of as per the prescribed procedure, and no fresh documents should be allowed to be produced before the appeal court. The contention is stated only to be rejected. 6. We should at this stage consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present appeal is to be disposed of as per the prescribed procedure, and no fresh documents should be allowed to be produced before the appeal court. The contention is stated only to be rejected. We have perused the original records of the University with respect to the selection process in question and maintained by the University in routine course of business, and were produced before the learned single Judge as well, and on both the occasions learned counsel for the parties got the benefit of perusal of the same. We have not considered any document beyond all that was considered by the learned single Judge. 7. We must consider the last grievance of the appellant. In his submission, respondent no.6 was not holder of Ph.D. degree on the date of the interview. It appears to us that the appellant acquired the Ph.D. degree of Ph.D. on 10.11.2006, whereas respondent no.6 acquired the degree on 25.1.2007. Both acquired the degree of Ph.D. before the date of interview i.e. 29.1.2007, and each one of them has been given 8 marks for the same. The appellant as well as respondent no.6 have been similarly treated and we, therefore, do not find any substance in the grievance of the appellant. 8. In the result, we dismiss the appeal. We disagree with the order of the learned single Judge, in so far as CWJC No.2533 of 2006 is concerned and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree.