Judgment : This group of Appeals preferred by the writ petitioners under clause 10 of the Letters Patent arise from a common judgment and order dated 7th May 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12121 of 2012 and other writ petitions. The matter at dispute is the recruitment for 2058 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Water Resources Department pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th November 2006 published by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). 2. It appears that the State Government made recruitment for appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil)/(Mechanical) under the advertisement published on 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006 on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in aggregate. Pursuant to the requisition made by the State Government, the Commission published the above referred advertisement on 29th November 2006, inter alia, for recruitment for 2058 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil). According to the said advertisement, for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the candidate must posses a Diploma in Civil Engineering or Rural Engineering from an institution recognized by the Bihar Technical Examination Board or the Central Technical Examination Board. The examination was conducted in two papers of 100 marks each in General Knowledge and in Civil Engineering. The petitioners claim that they had successfully cleared the examination by obtaining the qualifying marks at the said examination and that they have a right to appointment as Junior Engineer under the Government of Bihar. 3. It is indeed true that the Commission did prepare and publish a merit list of 800 candidates who had secured 40% marks in aggregate. The said merit list was not approved by the State Government. The State Government noticed that many of the candidates in the select list had failed to secure the qualifying marks in Civil Engineering but had secured qualifying marks in aggregate. In the opinion of the State Government, the candidates who had failed to secure qualifying marks in Civil Engineering, were not suitable for appointment as Engineers under the State Government. The State Government, therefore, under letter dated 23rd May 2012 requested the Commission to re-examine the merit list and to prepare a merit list of the candidates who had secured qualifying marks in both the papers. The State Government, therefore, under letter dated 23rd May 2012 requested the Commission to re-examine the merit list and to prepare a merit list of the candidates who had secured qualifying marks in both the papers. Pursuant to the said request, the Commission prepared a fresh merit list of 392 candidates who had secured qualifying marks in each paper. In the process, the petitioners who had earlier been placed on the merit list have lost their ground. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to question the decision of the State Government and the latter merit list of 392 successful candidates prepared and published by the Commission. 4. The appellants-petitioners have relied on the Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990 containing the General Instructions for the Bihar Public Service Commission and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission in respect of the qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidates in various competitive examinations for recruitment to the posts under the State Government. In the submission of the petitioners, the said Resolution did not specify that the qualifying marks indicated in the said Resolution were required to be obtained in each individual paper. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission had earlier, pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006, made selection on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained in aggregate. The same criterion was required to be continued in respect of the subject recruitment. The Commission had indeed prepared the merit list on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in aggregate without reference to the marks obtained in each individual paper. The petitioners had been declared successful under the original merit list prepared and published in January 2012. The petitioners, therefore, had an enforceable right to appointment on the principle of legitimate expectation. In the submission of the petitioners, the State Government had, after commencement of the recruitment process, altered the principle of selection to the detriment of the writ petitioners. The action of the State Government was not permissible as held by plethora of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have alleged hostile discrimination vis-à-vis the Junior Engineers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006. 5. The Petitions were contested by the State Government and the Commission. The action of the State Government was not permissible as held by plethora of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners have alleged hostile discrimination vis-à-vis the Junior Engineers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006. 5. The Petitions were contested by the State Government and the Commission. The Commission has produced the above referred facts and correspondence before the Court. The State Government has relied on the above referred Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990. The State Government has also relied upon the lopsided result published on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in aggregate. The State Government pointed out that as many as 335 candidates out of the 800 candidates recommended by the Commission had failed to secure even 33% marks in the subject of Civil Engineering. Out of them, many had secured less than 0 mark (on account of minus marking), some less than 10% and some less then 20%. Thus, totally unfit persons had entered into the arena of the selected candidates solely on the basis of the marks obtained in the paper of General Knowledge. 6. Learned Single Judge has reproduced the above referred Resolution dated 22nd December 1990 in extenso. The learned Single Judge has considered the above contentions raised by the writ petitioners and has rejected each of the aforesaid contentions. 7. The learned Single Judge has held, “the Government, being the appointing authority, had, therefore, a right to question such recommendation of the Commission and in fact, if the Government could have rejected the entire recommendation of the Commission as a whole and could have asked for a fresh selection to be undergone even that was very much permissible. Law in this regard is well settled that the recommendation of the Commission is not binding on the appointing authority and for a valid reason, the appointing authority can refuse to accept such recommendation made by the Commission. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shankaran Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 .” 8. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shankaran Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 .” 8. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. to hold, “the petitioners at best were only empanelled candidates and, therefore, if the recommendation of the Commission was not binding on the Government, the same also did not create any vested right or give rise to any legitimate expectation to the petitioners as was also held in the case of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1996)10 SCC 742 .” 9. The learned Single Judge has also examined the individual challenge to the marks recorded by the Commission and has discussed the same in great details. In the present Appeals the said challenge is not raised before us. 10. With respect to the Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990, the learned Single Judge has held, “the minimum cut-off, therefore, prescribed in the government resolution dated 22.12.1990 in the written examination cannot be read as an aggregate for all the subjects in which case a candidate securing 80 out of 100 in General Knowledge and even 0 in a subject of Engineering could claim selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer. When, the Government resolution dated 22.12.1990 fixes the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination to be conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission and Bihar Staff Selection Commission it essentially envisages that the candidate must secure the minimum cut-off marks in each of the subject of the written examination.” The above view of the learned Single Judge is supported by the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors. [ (2007) 4 SCC 737 ]; of Director General of Telecommunication & Anr. Vs. T N Peethambaran [ (1986) 4 SCC 348 ]; and of Sanchit Bansal & Anr. vs. Joint Admission Board & Ors. [ (2012) 1 SCC 157 ]. 11. In respect of the past practice adopted by the Commission, the learned Single Judge has held that in case the Government or the Commission had committed any illegality in past the same cannot be perpetuated. vs. Joint Admission Board & Ors. [ (2012) 1 SCC 157 ]. 11. In respect of the past practice adopted by the Commission, the learned Single Judge has held that in case the Government or the Commission had committed any illegality in past the same cannot be perpetuated. The principle of equality cannot be invoked in such matters. The said view has been supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurusharan Singh & Ors. vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors. [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ]. 12. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has examined each and every contention raised by the writ petitioners in great details and has dealt with each issue extensively supporting his view by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge. 13. Nevertheless, as the Appeals have been heard by us at a great length, we shall record the submissions made before us in a nutshell. 14. The facts recorded hereinabove are not in dispute. Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellants. Mr. Jitendra Singh has reiterated the contentions in respect of the past practice followed by the Commission, particularly in respect to the recruitment of Civil Engineers pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th May 2006 and 4th August 2006. He has invoked the principle of contemporaneous exposition as explained in the Black’s Legal Dictionary, (7th Edition, page 334), and has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T Beermasthan [ (2009) 5 SCC 545 ]; of Shailendra Dania vs. S P Dubey [ (2007) 5 SCC 535 ]; of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra [ (2010) 9 SCC 52 ];, and of Surendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1979 SC 1049 ). Mr. Jitendra Singh has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to answer the issues involved in the writ petitions. 15. He has next contended that once the recruitment process had commenced on 29th November 2006, criteria for selection could not have been altered nor the merit list once prepared could have been replaced by a merit list prepared on altogether a different principle. 15. He has next contended that once the recruitment process had commenced on 29th November 2006, criteria for selection could not have been altered nor the merit list once prepared could have been replaced by a merit list prepared on altogether a different principle. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of K Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ]; of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11]; and of P Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka. ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ). 16. He has next submitted that recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the advertisements dated 26th May 2006, 4th August 2006 and 29th November 2006 was part of the same selection process. The posts which could not be filled in pursuant to the 26th May 2006 advertisement, were advertised on 4th August 2006 and the spill over from 4th August 2006 recruitment process was advertised on 29th November 2006. The Commission or for that matter the State Government, therefore, could not have made departure from the consistent practice of preparing the merit list on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained in aggregate. The appellants have thus been meted hostile discrimination. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Anuj Choudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2013) 6 SCC 384 ]. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra has appeared for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.1221 of 2013. He has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He has submitted that in no circumstance the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge can be sustained. He has submitted that the constitutional principle of predictability of legal position requires that a rule/instruction as in this case if operated or implemented in a particular manner, such rule or instruction should be continued to be operated or implemented in that manner alone. He has submitted that in the instant case, the State Government has failed to act in accordance with the aforesaid principle in application of the 1990 Resolution. He has further submitted that the appellants have also been discriminated vis-à-vis the Junior Engineers (Mechanical) recruited pursuant to the said advertisement dated 29th November 2006. He has submitted that in the instant case, the State Government has failed to act in accordance with the aforesaid principle in application of the 1990 Resolution. He has further submitted that the appellants have also been discriminated vis-à-vis the Junior Engineers (Mechanical) recruited pursuant to the said advertisement dated 29th November 2006. He has submitted that the State Government is not consistent in application of the 1990 Instructions not only over the period but also in the matter of recruitment of Junior Engineers (Civil) and Junior Engineers (Mechanical) pursuant to the same common advertisement. He has submitted that recruitment in public employment requires selection of the best amongst available candidates. That is how the Commission had prepared the merit list published in January 2012. The State Government has fallen in grave error in making overnight change in the criteria for selection and that too after the selection process was completed and the merit list was prepared and published. In support of his submission, Mr. Kundan Kumar Mishra has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Shailendra Dania vs. S P Dubey [ (2007) 5 SCC 535 ]; of P H Paul Manoj Mandian vs. P Veldurai [ (2011) 5 SCC 214 ]; of Natural Resources Allocation, In Re Special Reference No.1 [ (2012) 10 SCC 1 ]; of Rohitash Kumar vs. Om Prakash Sharma [ (2013) 11 SCC 451 ]; of C Channabasaviah vs. State of Mysore & Ors. ( AIR 1965 SC 1293 ); of D G Telecommunication vs. T N Peethambaram [ (1986) 4 SCC 348 ] and; of Bishnu Biswas vs. Union of India [2014 (2) PLJR 394 (SC)]. 18. In the matter of Director General of Telecommunication & Another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that minimum pass mark in the examination prescribed under the rule, in absence of the word ‘aggregate’ in the rule, the prescribed minimum passing marks must mean minimum in each subject as well as minimum in aggregate. It is not in dispute that the competitive examinations conducted by the Commission are governed by the Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990. The said Resolution has specified the minimum qualifying marks that should be obtained by the candidates in each category, i.e. general merit candidates and the reserved category candidates. It is not in dispute that the competitive examinations conducted by the Commission are governed by the Government Resolution dated 22nd December 1990. The said Resolution has specified the minimum qualifying marks that should be obtained by the candidates in each category, i.e. general merit candidates and the reserved category candidates. It is the general rule applied to all examinations conducted by the Commission for recruitment to the posts under the State Government. Although it is a mere instruction, in absence of any statutory enactment or rule governing the filed, the aforesaid instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, will partake the nature of statutory rules. It is also true that the said Resolution does not specify that the aforesaid qualifying marks prescribed therein shall be obtained in aggregate or in each individual paper/subject. In absence of such specification, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and also as a matter of public policy, must mean the qualifying marks in each subject/paper. 19. I am also of the opinion that any person appointed on a public post is required to be proficient. A person appointed as Engineer has to be, apart from other qualifications, proficient in engineering. I, as a citizen, will expect an engineer to have sound knowledge of engineering rather than general knowledge. I, as a High Court, will not exercise discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of a person who does not know his subject. It would amount to leaving public projects in unsafe hands and the life of the people at peril. 20. As we are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge, as the learned Single Judge has considered each issue in extenso, we do not delve into the matter further. The Appeals are devoid of any merit. Appeals are dismissed. 21. The parties will bear their own costs. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. I agree.