JUDGMENT : 1. In each of this batch of writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is common and that is the issue of grant/refusal of weightage by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) as against the work experience gained by the incumbents having served on the post of Agriculture Coordinators, Assistant Technical Managers, Block Technical Managers, Subject-matter Specialists and other equivalent posts available in the Agriculture Department. 2. It is in consideration of the commonness of the grievance raised that the writ petitions have been heard analogous and with the consent of the parties are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. While the arguments on behalf of the petitioners have mainly been led by Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel and Mr. Dinu Kumar with other counsel supplementing the same, the State is represented by the respective State Counsel, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission is heard through Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General No.1 and the private/intervenor respondents have been heard through Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned senior Advocate assisted by the Advocates on record. 4. The grievances as raised by the petitioners through this batch of writ petitions has been already indicated by me and primarily raises objections on the decision-making process followed by ‘the Commission’ to award weightage for work experience so as to disqualify a number of applicants inclusive of some of the petitioners who have failed to secure their position in the provisional select list. It is raising such grievance that the writ petitioners have sought a direction to ‘the Commission’ to award them weightage on work experience in the same manner as having been granted to the Assistant Technical Managers, the Block Technical Managers, the Agriculture Coordinators, the Subject-matter Specialists and others holding equivalent posts in the department. 5. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWJC No.13658 of 2016 has referred to a letter of the Secretary, Agriculture Department dated 15.06.2016 enclosed at Annexure-8 to the said writ petition to submit that it is in consideration of this very issue that the Secretary has advised the Commission that a certification by the District Agriculture Officer of work experience gained on any post in the Agriculture Department, was entitled to such weightage. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Giri has next referred to a decision taken by a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary with the Agriculture Production Commissioner, the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department and the Chairman of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission as its Members present at Annexure-9 to the said writ petition to submit that the issue has further been clarified and the District Agriculture Officer has been authorized by the Committee to issue certificate of work experience on the post of Assistant Technical Managers, Block Technical Managers, Agriculture Coordinators appointed on contract, Subject Matter Specialists or any other post in the Agriculture Department, for grant of weightage. 7. It is the contention of Mr. Giri that these petitioners having served the Agriculture Department in various capacities are entitled to grant of weightage on work experience as granted to other persons holding the post referred to above. The grievance of the petitioners is that it is because they have been denied such weightage on work experience that they have failed to qualify in the merit-list. 8. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel raising similar issues in CWJC No.15845 of 2016 has questioned the decision of the Commission to award weightage on work experience gained by the applicants having served the post of Subject-Matter Specialist in the Agriculture Department. He has also referred to certain orders of this Court. 9. Similar issues regarding grant of weightage or refusal thereof to the applicants is the subject-matter of other writ petitions which have been heard analogous. 10. The arguments have been contested by learned counsel appearing for the State, the Commission and the private/intervenor respondents inter alia on grounds that the selection process is yet underway and thus the writ petitions are premature for until the final merit list is published, the petitioners have no cause of action. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. For the sake of convenience I shall be referring to the pleadings made in CWJC No.13658 of 2016 unless clarified with specific reference to the other writ petitions. 13. All these petitioners are applicants against the Advertisement No. 02010115 for appointment against the post of Agriculture Coordinators. A copy of the advertisement is placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In all 4391 posts of Agriculture Coordinators were advertised by the Commission against different categories mentioned in the advertisement, across the State. 13. All these petitioners are applicants against the Advertisement No. 02010115 for appointment against the post of Agriculture Coordinators. A copy of the advertisement is placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In all 4391 posts of Agriculture Coordinators were advertised by the Commission against different categories mentioned in the advertisement, across the State. Clause 7 of the advertisement lays down the procedure for selection and awards 30 marks on work experience as per the experience gained by them. It is this 30 marks earmarked by ‘the Commission’ towards work experience which is the subject matter of contest in the present batch of the writ petitions. 14. While some of the petitioners are aggrieved by non-award of this weightage towards work experience, there are yet others who have questioned the award of marks to a particular category. For example, it is the award of weightage to the applicants holding work experience on the post of Subject Matter Specialist, which aggrieves the petitioner in CWJC No.15845 of 2016 represented through Mr. Dinu Kumar. 15. It is following the selection process in terms of the advertisement that a merit-list was published and since these petitioners did not figure in the merit-list that they questioned the same through the present batch of writ petitions. The writ petitioners while questioning the merit-list so published by ‘the Commission’, have alongside complained of the manner and basis adopted by ‘the Commission’ for award of weightage towards work experience. 16. These matters were heard by a coordinate Bench of this Court and vide order passed on 16.2.2017, the Bench while allowing the Commission to file counter affidavit with equal opportunity to the contesting parties to exchange their pleading, restrained the State Government in its Agriculture Department from issuing any appointment/posting order pursuant to the select list so published. The interim order was allowed to continue until further orders by the Bench vide order passed on 23.2.2017. 17. The matter was thereafter taken up on 3.3.2017 and when Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, learned counsel appearing for ‘the Commission’ informed the Court that ‘the Commission’ is in the process of rectification of the error crept in the examination result in so far as the allotment of marks on experience/academics, is concerned. The submission made by the learned counsel for ‘the Commission’ stands noted in the order of this Court passed on 3.3.2017. 18. The submission made by the learned counsel for ‘the Commission’ stands noted in the order of this Court passed on 3.3.2017. 18. These matters after being adjourned on couple of dates on account of the fact that the functioning of the Commission came to a standstill by reason of institution of vigilance case against the Chairman and others for alleged act of omission and commission, was taken up on 10.4.2017 when this Court was informed by Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, learned counsel appearing for the Commission that the new Chairman has assumed office and the work of evaluation of result is underway. It was informed that the result would be recast within six weeks’ time. The submission of learned counsel for the Commission stands noted in the order dated 10.4.2017. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that since the Chairman was in the process of recasting the result he would be well advised to consider the issue raised in the writ petitions as well. 19. These matters were thereafter taken up on 15.5.2017 when it was admitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Commission that the select list published earlier suffered errors and which required rectification. In other words, the grievance raised by the petitioners did attract the attention of the Commission and the defect was admitted. A prayer was made for uploading the recast provisional select list within 10 days time and accordingly these matters were adjourned. 20. These matters were next taken up on 25.5.2017 and since ‘the Commission’ had failed to keep its promise of uploading the provisional select list after removing the errors that this Court expressing anguish on the default, while recording its order on 25.5.2017, posted these matters for today. Today when these matters are taken up that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General No.1 in reference thereto has informed that the list of all the candidates provisionally selected for the post of Agriculture Coordinator(s) pursuant to the advertisement in question has already been uploaded on the website of ‘the Commission’ after scrutiny and rectification, inviting objections from all persons. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General No.1 in reference thereto has informed that the list of all the candidates provisionally selected for the post of Agriculture Coordinator(s) pursuant to the advertisement in question has already been uploaded on the website of ‘the Commission’ after scrutiny and rectification, inviting objections from all persons. In reference to a notice bearing Memo No.1057 dated 25.5.2017 placed on record at Annexure-S/3 to the second supplementary counter affidavit filed today he submits that objections have been invited from all the candidates online. It is submitted by Mr. Kishore that the petitioners can well file their objections to the provisional list and which shall be considered and disposed of accordingly. 21. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that although the petitioners have filed their objections but ‘the Commission’ or the authority concerned may be appropriately directed to dispose of the same objectively after taking note of the objections so raised by the applicants online, as also advanced before this Court. 22. Mr. Kanth, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the candidates who had been originally selected for appointment has submitted that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, they have been denied the fruits of their selection. It is his contention that since there was no dispute as regarding the grant of weightage to these private respondents/intervener-applicants, even if, there be any grievance raised by the petitioners on account of non-grant of weightage towards work experience, it does not affect the case of those applicants who have gained selection on the basis of merit. 23. As I have already indicated, while the petitioners in most of the writ petitions have complained against the denial of weightage towards work experience, inter alia, on ground that the post which these petitioners held were within the category of posts entitled to award of weightage towards their work experience, there are other writ petitioners like the petitioners in CWJC No.15845 of 2016 who have questioned the award of such weightage to the applicants holding the post of Subject Matter Specialist etc. At the present juncture this Court would not be expressing any opinion on the dispute for the reason that the issue for the present lies within the domain of ‘the Commission’ and who at the present juncture are in seisin of the matter to dispose of the rival claims objectively and in a purposeful manner. 24. Although a prayer was made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to keep the batch of writ petitions pending until disposal of the objections but this Court is not persuaded by such argument because these writ petitions were filed against the results initially published by ‘the Commission’ which were put to challenge in the writ petitions while also seeking a direction to ‘the Commission’ to grant the applicants suitable marks on the work experience but in view of the developments that has taken place in the matter where the original select list has given way to the rectified list and against which objections have been invited vide Annexure- S/3 to the affidavit filed today in CWJC No.13658 of 2016, the issue raised in the writ petitions, for the present has been rendered infructuous for any final order passed by ‘the Commission’ or the authority concerned so constituted, if any, it may give a fresh cause of action for the applicants but in so far as the issues raised in the writ petitions are concerned, that fresh objections have been invited by ‘the Commission’ and have also been uploaded by the candidates, for the present, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met with the direction to ‘the Commission’ or the authority concerned so constituted, if any, to consider the objections raised by the petitioners some of which stands noted above and dispose of the same objectively by a speaking order. 25. It goes without saying that the rejection of objections should be supported with reasons reflecting application of mind as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010)9 SCC 496 (Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan) more particularly paragraph 47 thereof. 26. 25. It goes without saying that the rejection of objections should be supported with reasons reflecting application of mind as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2010)9 SCC 496 (Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan) more particularly paragraph 47 thereof. 26. Before parting with the judgment this Court deems it proper to place on record that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim so raised by the petitioners except recording the submissions so advanced on their behalf through their learned counsel and which would require a consideration in the disposal of the objections. 27. The writ petitions and the interlocutory applications are accordingly disposed of with the directions above.