JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 14.7.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner pursuant to direction contained in order 31.3.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in CWP N. 5480 of 2012 titled Pawan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, came to be rejected, petitioner approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3461 of 2015, which now account of its abolishment stands transferred to this court and reregistered as such, praying therein for following main reliefs: “a) Qua the impugned order A-18 being arbitrary, malafide and illegal; b) Direct the respondents to give marks of qualifications to the applicant and thereafter hold him selected and issue appointment letter w.e.f. 12.03.2012, i.e. date of declaration of results with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that pursuant to notice inviting application dated 16.6.2011, issued by Executive Office, Panchayat Samiti, Development Block Theog for the post of Panchayat Sahayak, the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates applied and being eligible was called for interview. Though after conclusion of interview, merit list was drawn and final merit list was displayed on notice board of Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, whereas, allegedly, the petitioner was shown to be selected against the post but after pasting the notice on notice board on 12.3.2012, on the next day i.e. 13.3.2012, it was removed and no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. 3. On enquiry, it transpired that instead of petitioner, respondent No. 7-Rajni was declared to be successful but even she was not issued appointment letter because, representation was filed by the petitioner to the authority concerned, with regard to wrong distribution of marks. Since the petitioner despite being B.C.A. was not awarded marks for the said qualification, he was shown to have secured 46.30 in total and Rajni was shown to have secured 51.10 marks. After having received representation of the petitioner, respondents realized their mistake and found that 10.24 marks ought to have been awarded to the petitioner for qualification of B.C.A.. Had aforesaid marks been awarded to the petitioner, his total would have been more than 51.10, which was otherwise secured by respondent No.7 Rajni. After having received representation of the petitioner, respondents realized their mistake and found that 10.24 marks ought to have been awarded to the petitioner for qualification of B.C.A.. Had aforesaid marks been awarded to the petitioner, his total would have been more than 51.10, which was otherwise secured by respondent No.7 Rajni. Petitioner after having noticed mistake committed by respondents while preparing result, requested the respondents to review the result, but interestingly, no steps were taken. Finally, vide communication dated 17.3.2012, Director Panchayati Raj Himachal Pradesh directed Block Development Officer Development Block Theog re-look into selection process (Annexure P-10). While issuing direction to the Block Development Officer, Director, Panchayati Raj specifically asked aforesaid authority to award marks to the petitioner for B.C.A. qualification but interestingly, no decision was taken by the Block Development Officer, Theog. Vide communication dated 30.5.2012, District Panchayat Officer Shimla again reminded Block Development Officer Theog to apprise about action taken on the complaint made by the petitioner. Vide aforesaid communication District Panchayat Officer specifically asked Block Development Officer Theog why till date, appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner. Since, despite there being repeated instructions from higher authorities, Block Development Officer failed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner despite his being at Sr. No.1 in merit list, petitioner was compelled to approach this court by way of CWP No. 5480 of 2012 (Annexure A- 17), which came to be disposed of by this Court, with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to decide the representation having been made by petitioner by passing a speaking order within four weeks. In compliance to aforesaid direction issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla re-examined the matter but instead of ordering issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, directed authority below to conduct fresh interview. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which stands transferred to this Court, praying therein for the reliefs as have been reproduced above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned order dated 14.7.2015. (Annexure A-18) passed by Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in the eye of law, because once it is established that petitioner ought to have been awarded 10.24 marks for degree of BCA, he was required to be issued appointment letter and there was no occasion to order fresh interview. (Annexure A-18) passed by Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in the eye of law, because once it is established that petitioner ought to have been awarded 10.24 marks for degree of BCA, he was required to be issued appointment letter and there was no occasion to order fresh interview. While referring to the communication placed on record as annexures A-10 and A-14, Mr. Chauhan, argued that repeatedly authorities after having carefully perused Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Panchayat Sahayak, clarified that the petitioner was required to be given marks for degree of BCA but yet Block Development Officer, Theog failed to take action. He submitted that since result was only required to be modified/reviewed after awarding of marks to petitioner for degree of BCA, there was no occasion if any, for Deputy Commissioner Shimla to order for fresh interview, because, in that eventuality, the petitioner who has been selected, would be put to ordeal of preparing himself for fresh interview and otherwise, a right has accrued in favour of the petitioner on the date of interview, which has crystallized and now forcing the petitioner to face another selection process, would amount to vitiating said right, especially when there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Davinder Chauhan Jaitta, Advocate appearing for respondent No.7, while supporting impugned order submitted that since selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 16.6.2011, was not concluded and before declaration of result, authority decided to conduct fresh interview, no right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner for appointment against the post in question. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that no doubt, as per scheme of marks given in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, framed for the post in question, marks were required to be given to candidates, for the qualification of BBA/BCA but since none of the candidates was given marks for said qualification, no prejudice if any can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. Lastly, Mr. Bhatnagar stated that otherwise also no prejudice can be said to have been caused to petitioner with the passing of impugned order by Deputy Commissioner because in the event of fresh selection process, petitioner will get opportunity to compete therein. 6. Lastly, Mr. Bhatnagar stated that otherwise also no prejudice can be said to have been caused to petitioner with the passing of impugned order by Deputy Commissioner because in the event of fresh selection process, petitioner will get opportunity to compete therein. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that admittedly, petitioner was required to be given marks for degree of BCA and if he was awarded marks for the same, definitely he would have ranked higher than private respondent, who admittedly got 51.10 marks in total. It is not in dispute that none of candidates, other than petitioner possessed BCA/BBA degree as such, there was no occasion for selection committee to consider awarding of these marks to candidates, other than the petitioner but once, petitioner possessed BCA degree and there was provision to give marks for said qualification, selection committee after having discovered mistake ought to have redrawn merit list. 7. However, in the case at hand, interestingly, though higher authorities repeatedly reminded Block Development Officer Theog with regard to mistake committed by selection committee while awarding marks, but said authority neither reviewed the result nor issued appointment letter to the petitioner, who being most meritorious deserved to be appointed against the post in question. If the impugned order is perused in its entirety it reveals that though authorities in helm of affairs, were aware of mistake committed by them but since Chairman/Sub Divisional Magistrate of selection committee stood transferred, mistake could not be rectified but this court is not impressed with the said defence of the respondent State, because office of Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be allowed to remain vacant for months together, rather, having regard to nature and duties of Sub Divisional Magistrate, some officer is required to be posted at the first instance. 8. In the case at hand, matter remained pending before authority concerned, for months together and thereafter suddenly Deputy Commissioner that too after intervention of this court, rejected claim of the petitioner for appointment and ordered for fresh interview. 9. No doubt, in the event of fresh interview, petitioner would be at liberty to participate but once, it stands established on record that he was most meritorious candidate and was having much higher marks than the selected candidate, there is no reason for this court to put him to ordeal of interview again. 9. No doubt, in the event of fresh interview, petitioner would be at liberty to participate but once, it stands established on record that he was most meritorious candidate and was having much higher marks than the selected candidate, there is no reason for this court to put him to ordeal of interview again. 10. Though, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Davinder Chauhan Jaitta, Advocate argued that no right accrued in favour of the petitioner on account of his having participated in the selection process, but as has been taken note herein above, petitioner not only participated in selection process, but he was shown to be at number one in merit list pasted on notice board on 12.3.2012 which was abruptly removed on 13.3.2012. 11. Information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 by the petitioner (A-9/A, page 34) clearly reveals that result of interview for the post of Panchayat Sahayak was pasted on notice board on 12.3.2012, but when authority realized the mistake that petitioner has not been given marks for his BCA degree, result was removed from the notice board on 13.3.2012 and thereafter, result was never declared. 12. A close scrutiny of impugned order reveals that though said authority was convinced that petitioner being BCA ought to have been awarded marks for the said qualification, but yet instead of ordering review of merit list, ordered for fresh interview. Save and except petitioner there was no other candidate ,who was required to be given marks for BBA./BCA meaning thereby he being sole candidate having BCA degree had edge over others and in that event, he was the only person, who was to be selected. 13. Though Deputy Commissioner, while passing impugned order has ordered for fresh interviews of candidates, who had participated in earlier selection process, but learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that in the event of fresh selection being conducted and petitioner being subjected to selection process, respondents yet have scope for awarding lesser marks for personal interview/ viva-voce and thus may given handle to them to reject the petitioner, petitioner is under apprehension that having approached court of law, respondents may not assess his candidature in a fair manner and his right, which otherwise stood crystallized on 12.3.2012 with the declaration of result, would be frustrated and all his efforts would go waste. 14. 14. Consequently in view of above, this court finds merit in the petition and same is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure A-18) is quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to review the merit list of interview held on 12.3.2012 for the post of Panchayat Sahayak in Development Block Theog and award marks to the petitioner for BCA degree and in case thereafter, he is found in merit and suitable for the post, he may be issued appointment letter. Record produced by Shri Diwaka Dutt Sharma, Panchayat Inspector office of Block Development Officer, Theog is returned after perusal. 15. Since the petitioner has not worked against post, he would not be entitled to financial benefits, but his seniority shall be counted from the date, when result was declared i.e. 12.3.2012, in the event of his being found suitable and appointment letter being issued in his favour. 16. The petition stands disposed of in afore terms alongwith all pending applications.