JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions seek to raise issues, which are common to each other and, accordingly, they were heard together. 2. The writ petitioners are existing Lecturers of Government Polytechnics, except the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 98 of 2012, who is working in the Public Works Department. The Commission had published an advertisement, inviting applications for supplying vacancies in the posts of Principal of Polytechnics. In that, it was indicated that the minimum basic required qualification for the candidates is 1st class Graduation in Engineering. Petitioners, who are A.M.I.E., responded to the said advertisement. Their selection has not resulted in giving them appointments to the advertised posts. Hence, the present writ petitions. 3. It has been contended that A.M.I.E. is equivalent to Bachelors’ Degree in Engineering. It has been stated that the petitioners have received more than 60 per cent marks in A.M.I.E. and, accordingly, it must be deemed that the petitioners are 1st Class Bachelors’ Degree holders in Engineering and, accordingly, there was no just reason not to select them. 4. The Commission has drawn our attention to the Statutory Rules. In that, it has been provided that 25 per cent of the posts of Principal is available for direct recruitees and that the minimum basic educational qualification for a direct recruitee for the post of Principal is 1st Class Degree in Engineering or Technology. It has been contended that none of the petitioners, in their A.M.I.E. certificates, has been certified to have obtained a 1st Class in A.M.I.E. It was submitted, which also appears from the Statutory Rules, that 75 per cent of the posts are available for promotees and the criteria for promotion is seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. It was submitted that the Statutory Rules provide that the Lecturers, Engineering and Technical Branches, can be appointed from amongst people having a Degree in Engineering, with 55 per cent marks or A.M.I.E. It was submitted that the Statutory Rules, therefore, held out that a person holding A.M.I.E. should be deemed to be equivalent to have secured 55 per cent marks in Engineering Degree. It was submitted that, in those circumstances, even if the petitioners have received more than 60 per cent marks in A.M.I.E., they could not be treated as 1st Class Degree holders in Engineering, as the same would have violated the mandate contained in the Statute. 5. It was submitted that, in those circumstances, even if the petitioners have received more than 60 per cent marks in A.M.I.E., they could not be treated as 1st Class Degree holders in Engineering, as the same would have violated the mandate contained in the Statute. 5. Having regard to such submission being made, petitioners, through their counsel, sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to re-approach the Court challenging the Statute in question. 6. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as above.