ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the selection process initiated by the High Court of Chhattisgarh/respondent No. 1 for appointment on the post of Translator by which the petitioner’s claim for appointment has not been considered and respondent No. 5 has been appointed as translator. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the High Court of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 29-12-2016 (Annexure P/3) for appointment on the post of Translator. According to the advertisement, five have to be filled up and qualification for appointment on the post of Translator has been prescribed in the advertisement which reads as under: Name of Post: Translator QUALIFICATION: Must be a Law Graduate from any recognised University. Weightage shall be given to Legal Assistants attached to the Hon’ble Chief Justice or the Hon’ble Judge, successfully discharging their duties. Pay Band: Rs. 9300-34800 + 4200 G.P. Total No. of Posts: 05 Category Total Unreserved 01 -- SC 01 -- ST 02 Including 01 for Women OBC 01 -- 3. The advertisement further provides that the weightage shall be given to legal assistant attached to the Hon’ble Chief Justice or Hon’ble Judge, successfully discharging their duties. It is pertinent to mention here that the services of the employees are governed by Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003. Part-V of the said Rules provides method and minimum qualification for appointment to the various class-III posts. The post of translator is at Serial No. 4 of the list. The minimum qualification and experience in the Schedule is the candidate must be a Law Graduate from any recognised University - Weightage shall be given to legal assistants attached to the Hon’ble Chief Justice or the Hon’ble Judge successfully discharging their duties. 4. In pursuance of the selection proceeding initiated by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner who is law graduate and being eligible to participate in the selection process along with respondent No. 5 have participated in the selection process. 4. In pursuance of the selection proceeding initiated by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner who is law graduate and being eligible to participate in the selection process along with respondent No. 5 have participated in the selection process. In pursuance of the selection process common merit list (Annexure P/5) was published by the High Court wherein the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 3 and the marks obtained by him including the marks of written examination and personal interview, total marks comes to 317 out of 400 whereas respondent No. 5 secured 315 marks as reflected from the common merit list. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the High Court has committed illegality in granting weightage of 10% of the total marks obtained to respondent No. 5 as the petitioner has secured higher marks than the respondent No. 5 therefore, they are unequal as such weightage should not be given to respondent No. 5, therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 5 is bad-in-law. He would further submit that the weightage will be given to the candidate if they are at par with them, then only weightage will be given. He would further submit that at the relevant time, respondent No. 5 was not working in the High Court, as such also grant of weightage of 10% marks to respondent No. 5 is illegal. To substantiate this submission he would refer to the paragraph No. 9.12, 9.19 of reply of respondents No. 1 to 4 wherein the respondents No. 1 to 4 have pleaded as under: “The Sub-Committee was very well considered the fact that the respondent No. 5 was not discharging the duties of Legal Assistant at the time of advertisement to the post of translator, but he has discharged the duties of Legal Assistant in the Registry for a considerable period.” 6. As such also, grant of weightage of 10% marks to respondent No. 5 is erroneous consideration, therefore, he would submit that the appointment order of respondent No. 5 may be set aside and since he was in merit position in the merit list his candidature for appointment on the post of Translator be considered with all consequential benefits, when the respondent No. 5 was appointed. 7. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that selection process has been conducted in accordance with law and governing rules, the weightage to respondent No. 5 and other candidates who are similarly situated they have been given weightage. He would further submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process, therefore, he cannot subsequently challenge the selection process and would pray for dismal of the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would submit that in pursuance of the selection, respondent No. 5 was appointed on 11-4-2017 and since then he is working on the post of translator and subsequently he has been promoted on 10-11-2022 on the post of AG-I and more than six years have lapsed, therefore, appointment of respondent No. 5 may not be disturbed as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even if respondent No. 5 is allowed to continue in the service. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of Chahttisgarh and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 494 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in Para 24 to 28 which read as under: “24. In Union of India and Another vs. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750 this Court considered the age of the employee who was erroneously promoted and the duration of his service on the promoted post and the factor of retiring from service on attaining the age of superannuation and observed as follows: “35. The last prayer on behalf of respondent, however, needs to be sympathetically considered. The respondent is holding the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) since last seventeen years. He is on the verge of retirement, so much so, that only few days have remained. He will be reaching at the age of superannuation by the end of this month i.e. December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate now to revert the respondent to the post of Accountant for very short period. We, therefore, direct the appellants to continue the respondent as Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of superannuation i.e. upto December 31, 2007. At the same time, we hold that since the action of the Authorities was in accordance with Statutory Rules, an order passed by the Deputy Accountant-General canceling promotion of the respondent and reverting him to his substantive post of Accountant was legal and valid and the respondent could not have been promoted as Senior Accountant, he would be deemed to have retired as Accountant and not as Senior Accountant (Functional) and his pensionary and retiral benefits would be fixed accordingly by treating him as Accountant all through out. 36. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Though the respondent is allowed to continue on the post of Senior Accountant (Functional) till he reaches the age of retirement i.e. December 31, 2007 and salary paid to him in that capacity will not be recovered, his retiral benefits will be fixed not as Senior Accountant (Functional) but as Accountant. In the facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 25. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 591 although recorded a finding that appointments given under the ‘wait list’ were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more). 26. In Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Others vs. Akhil Kumar and Others, (2001) 2 SCR 18 , even though the appointments were held to be improper, this Court did not disturb the appointments on the ground that the incumbents had worked for several years and had gained experience and observed: “6. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period.” [See: M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, (1993) 2 LLJ 1159 SC and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 ] 27. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked on the posts for a long period.” [See: M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others, (1993) 2 LLJ 1159 SC and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 ] 27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured 317 marks which is higher than 315 marks obtained by the respondent No. 5, as such, they are unequal and it is also not in dispute that respondent No. 5 was not attached with the Hon’ble Chief Justice or Hon’ble Judges as admitted by the High Court in the return also, still he has been granted weightage which is not the criteria for granting weightage or preference to the candidates as weightage can be given only when claims of all the candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equal positioned by using the additional weightage as a tilting factor in their favour, vis-a-vis versa, others in the matter of actual selection. 11. 11. Granting of the weightage or preference has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which circumstances weightage to a candidate can be granted in the case of Sanjay Ahlawat vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohrtak and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 762 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para-11 which reads as under: “11. Strong reliance was placed by the appellant on the case of Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (1986) 2 SCC 534 . In that case, Rule B(2) framed by the State Government on December 21, 1984 for admission of Students to the MBBS Course was under challenge. Rule B(2) provided: “Students who have passed HSC (10+2) 12th standard examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from Schools/Colleges situated within the jurisdiction of one university are not eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another university. The seats at the Government Medical Colleges in Maharashtra State except those earmarked for nominees of the Government of India and nominees of Miraj Medical Center and these mentioned in Rule D(4) below are reserved for the students of the respective university area.” 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has also considered the same issue in the case of Abdul Hamid and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 346 wherein it has been held in Para 11 as under: “11. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the Railways trained apprentices on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others. In Para 12 of the judgment it has been held that all other things being equal, the trained apprentices should be given preference upon direct apprentices. This judgment does not help the appellants at all. What has been held is that if the non-Railway trained apprentice is equal to the Railways trained apprentice on merit, then preference can be given to the Railways trained apprentice. The word “preference” does not mean that the Railways trained apprentice will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. Both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in deciding this issue against the Railways and in favour of the original applicants.” 13. The word “preference” does not mean that the Railways trained apprentice will have an exclusive right to the exclusion of all others to be considered for appointment. Both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in deciding this issue against the Railways and in favour of the original applicants.” 13. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The Chairman, Tangedco and Others vs. Priyadaarshini, 2021 (4) SCT 426 : Manu/SC/1164/2021 has held at Para-11 as under: 11. Whenever, a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition, and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, it cannot be for the purpose of putting them as a whole lot ahead of others, dehors their intrinsic worth or proven inter se merit and suitability, duly assessed by the competent authority. Preference, in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidate's to be considered. 14. In the light of above legal position, it is quite vivid that weightage can be given when both the candidates are equal in obtaining marks and they are equal in all other aspects, then only weightage can be given to the candidates who have been working in the High Court as per recruitment rules and as per advertisement. Therefore, prima facie, it is required for grant of weightage, if the candidate should be equal in all aspects, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that the petitioner has secured 317 marks whereas respondent No. 5 has secured 315 marks which are less than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, the High Court has committed illegality in granting weightage to the petitioner to decline the claim of the petitioner. This clearly reflects irregularity on the part of the High Court which deserves to be set aside. Therefore, the High Court has committed illegality in granting weightage to the petitioner to decline the claim of the petitioner. This clearly reflects irregularity on the part of the High Court which deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside, but, this Court can mould the relief by not cancelling the appointment of respondent No. 5 who has already been appointed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 8-9-2017 and more than six years have lapsed and also considering that subsequently he has been promoted on 26-08-2021 and after lapse of six years, cancellation of his appointment will be not only harmful to him but to his family and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap (Supra), the appointment of respondent No. 5 is not cancelled or annulled. 15. During midst of argument it has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 under instructions that 12 posts of Translator are still lying vacant, as such, without cancelling or annulling the appointment of respondent No. 5 it is directed that the respondent No. 1 to 4 shall issue appointment order to the petitioner on the post of Translator within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He will be granted seniority from 11-4-2017 on the post of translator in the High Court. But no monetary benefits shall be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner is already practising in the High court. It is made clear that on issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner, appointment of respondent No. 5 shall not be disturbed and he will be allowed to continue with the respondent. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.