ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned J.C. to G.P. for the respondents. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6248 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by petitioner for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Opthalmic Assistant in the district of Jamtara in place of respondent no. 8, has been dismissed. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have not considered his computer certificate and no marks have been given in lieu of the said computer certificate. 4. Counsel for the appellant further submits that he should be given preference over the respondent no. 8, as he is a local person. 5. Learned J.C. to G.A. submits that the ground of giving preference was not taken in the writ application before the learned Single Judge and for the first time he has raised this point before this Division Bench. He submits that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and there is no material to interfere with the said judgment. 6. Admittedly the petitioner has obtained 46.6 marks whereas as respondent no. 8 has obtained 48.332. In the merit list respondent no. 8 was shown at serial no.1, whereas appellant was shown at serial no. 2. Thus it is clear that the respondent no.8 is more meritorious than the appellant. The appellant is claiming preference on ground of local resident. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secy. A.P. Public Service Commission V. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, as reported in (2003) 5 SCC 341 , has held that the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. 7. Preference, in the scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. 7. Preference, in the scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Om Prakash, as reported in (2006) 6 SCC 474 , and in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India, as reported in (2002) 4 SCC 16 . Thus what is admitted in the instant cases is that respondent no.8 has obtained more mark then that of the appellant. In this said circumstances it cannot be said that both persons are equal, thus no preference can be granted on ground of “local residence”. 8. In view of the above finding and proposition of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6248 of 2013. 9. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 10. Dismissal of this Letters Patent Appeal on merit will not come in the way of the appointing authority to consider his case for appointment from the waiting list.