JUDGMNET Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The interviews for the post of D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar were held on 5.10.2007. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature alongwith other candidates. The last date of receipt of application was 5.10.2007. Petitioner was interviewed on 5.10.2007. However, the selection committee recommended the name of respondent No.6. Petitioner filed complaint before the Inquiry Committee headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin. According to the findings of the Inquiry Committee, merit was ignored by the P.T.A. while appointing respondent No.6. Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. He allowed the same on 9.4.2010. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. 2. Petitioner has also obtained M. Phil. Degree and he was fully eligible and qualified on the last date of receipt of application, i.e. 5.10.2007. It is clear from the order of the Additional District Magistrate that following criteria was prescribed for the candidates for filling up the post of D.P.E.: i. Basic qualification plus 2 or graduation - 35% ii. Professional education, i.e. B.P.Ed or BPE - 30% iii. Higher education i.e. M.P.Ed. - 10% iv. M. Phil/Ph.D. -10% v. Interview -10 marks. vi. Local dialects - 5 marks. Total : 100 marks 3. However, surprisingly enough, the P.T.A. in violation of the criteria laid down, as noted hereinabove, has prescribed the following criteria, as per record produced before this Court, on 5.10.2007: Academic or examination Percentage 1) Basic qualification for the post, i.e.+2 or graduation -35% (of the total percentage) 2) Professional education for the post, i.e. B. PEd or BPE -30% 3) Higher Education, i.e. M.P Ed. -10% 4) (a) M. Phill -4% (of the total percentage) (b) Ph. D. -10 (10 marks if Ph.D. completed by the candidate) Interview 5) Subject experience -10 6) Local dialect -05 Total : 100 marks. 4. According to the norms prescribed, the Selection Committee has to award 10% marks for M.Phil/Ph.D. Petitioner though was having M. Phil. degree has been given only 2.6 marks by the Selection Committee., though he was entitled to 6.5 marks, i.e. 10% of the total marks. Petitioner has been awarded overall 56.43 marks and respondent No.6 has been awarded 58.05 marks. Petitioner was required to be awarded 6.5 marks, i.e. 10% marks of the total marks and then his overall score would become 60.43. Petitioner has been awarded overall 56.43 marks and respondent No.6 has been awarded 58.05 marks. Petitioner was required to be awarded 6.5 marks, i.e. 10% marks of the total marks and then his overall score would become 60.43. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee was contrary to law. This aspect has been over looked by the appellate authority, i.e. Additional District Magistrate while deciding the appeal on 9.4.2010. It was not open to the P.T.A. to allot 4% marks instead of 10% marks for M. Phil. qualification. Respondent No.6 is only B.P.Ed. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-3 dated 9.4.2010 is quashed and set aside. The appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar is set aside. Respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to issue appointment letter for appointment as D.P.E. in Government Senior Secondary School, Jaddu Kuljar in favour of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.