JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Sharan, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. This Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking following reliefs- (i) For holding and directing that the petitioners are entitled for grant of benefit of weightage/ 20% weightage on the marks obtained by them in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Post Graduate) 2024 examination for determination of their merit and rank in selection process of Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling 2024 for admission to the 2024 session of post graduate degree course in medical education in health institutions of State of Bihar initiated under Advertisement No.2024/01 dated 03.11.2024 issued by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna and to further hold and declare that the withdrawal of the said benefit of weightage/ 20% weightage for the said purpose by the respondents, in particular by the said Board, under the following Advertisement No. 2024/06 dated 24.11.2024, is illegal, irrational and arbitrary. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, Patna, to combine and to give effect to and to consequently allot seats to the petitioners under the Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling 2024 for admission to the 2024 session of post-graduate degree course in medical education on the basis of the unrevised merit list and unrevised rank cards of the petitioners earlier issued by the said Board under follow up Advertisement No. 2024/04 dated 13.11.2024 prepared by adding the above benefit of 20% weightage on marks of the petitioners of NEET-PG 2024 examination as well as to direct the respondents, in particular the said Board, to not to give effect to the revised merit list and revised rank cards of the petitioners prepared withdrawing the said benefit of 20% weightage as issued by it under the follow up Advertisement No. 20224/06 dated 24.11.2024 for the purpose of the said process of admission. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the above said Board to produce its decision to completely withdraw the above said benefit of 20% weightage granted earlier to the petitioners in the above said selection process for admission and on its production to quash the same. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the above said Board to produce its decision to completely withdraw the above said benefit of 20% weightage granted earlier to the petitioners in the above said selection process for admission and on its production to quash the same. (iv) Alternatively, to quash letter No. 813 (1) dated 20.11.2024 of the Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna withdrawing the benefit of weightage of 20% on marks obtained by the petitioners in NEET-PG 2024 examination for determination of their merit and rank for allocation of seats for admission to the above said course of session 2024 under the Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling, 2024. (v) For any other relief or reliefs, either independently or consequentially, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner No. 1 had passed MBBS course from VIMS Pawapuri in the year 2020 and has also completed his one year internship from there in the year 2021, the Petitioner No. 2 has passed MBBS course from DMCH, Darbhanga in the year 2020 and had also completed his one year internship from there in the year 2021, and the Petitioner No. 3 has passed MBBS course from PMCH in the year 2020 and had also completed his one year internship from there in year 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government, in its cabinet meeting held on 11.05.2021, took a policy decision to create a total of 2,580 floating posts for the employment of newly graduated MBBS doctors from government medical colleges in Bihar. These positions were intended for contractual employment in rural areas for a period of two years. As per the policy, 1,290 posts would be filled each year, with each Health Department, Government of Bihar, to the accountant General, Bihar, through a letter bearing Memo No. 608(2), dated 24.05.2021. The policy further provided that doctors serving in these positions for the stipulated period would be granted weightage for admission to postgraduate courses in the following year. Pursuant to this policy, the Health Department, Government of Bihar, issued an Advertisement through a Press Note dated 09.09.2021, inviting applications until 30.09.2021, from MBBS graduates of the year 2020. The policy further provided that doctors serving in these positions for the stipulated period would be granted weightage for admission to postgraduate courses in the following year. Pursuant to this policy, the Health Department, Government of Bihar, issued an Advertisement through a Press Note dated 09.09.2021, inviting applications until 30.09.2021, from MBBS graduates of the year 2020. The selection of these 1,290 contractual posts of Medical Officers was to be based on the candidates’ academic performance in MBBS course. The advertisement also explicitly stated that doctors appointed under this scheme would receive the benefit of weightage in postgraduate course admission as a result of their service. (Annexures P/1 & P/2 of the Writ Petition). 5. Thereafter, the petitioners being eligible for the aforesaid Advertisement applied and subsequently got appointed by the order dated 24.03.2022 bearing letter No. 391(2) issued by the Health Department, Govt. of Bihar. The Petitioner No. 1 got posted and joined on dated 19.04.2024 at Addl. Primary Health Centre, Narhan, Vibhutipur, Samastipur; Petitioner No. 2 posted and joined on dated 13.04.2024 at Addl. Primary Health Centre, Lalukadera, Phalka, Katihar; and the Petitioner No. 3 got posted and joined on 21.04.2024 at Addl. Primary Health Centre, Saroun, Chakai, Jamui. (Annexures P/3 of the Writ Petition). 6. Learned counsel further submitted that, upon the completion of the two-year contractual period, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer of the districts of Samastipur, Katihar, and Jamui issued experience certificates/experience-cum-character certificates in favor of Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, respectively. These certificates were issued through Memo No. 4048 dated 24.09.2024, Memo No. 1465 dated 24.05.2024, and Memo No. 1326 dated 09.09.2024. (Annexure P/4 of the Writ Petition) 7. Pursuant to this, the Petitioners applied for admission to postgraduate medical education for the 2024 session through the NEET-PG examination conducted by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences on 11.08.2024. The result was declared on 23.08.2023, and all the Petitioners qualified, securing All India Rankings in their respective categories. For the purpose of conducting counselling for the allotment of seats in postgraduate medical courses for the 2024 session, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB), Patna, was responsible for filling 50% of the State Quota seats in approved government and private hospitals/colleges in Bihar based on the NEET-PG 2024 results. For the purpose of conducting counselling for the allotment of seats in postgraduate medical courses for the 2024 session, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (BCECEB), Patna, was responsible for filling 50% of the State Quota seats in approved government and private hospitals/colleges in Bihar based on the NEET-PG 2024 results. In this regard, the Health Department, Government of Bihar, through a letter bearing Memo No. 1314(2), dated 20.09.2024, directed the grant of weightage benefits in postgraduate admissions to medical officers as per the policy dated 24.05.2021. Furthermore, well before this issuance of this order, the Health Department, Government of Bihar, had already communicated its decision through Letter No. 700(1), dated 14.10.2023, addressed to the Board, instructing the incorporation of the weightage benefit in postgraduate admissions in accordance with the policy dated 24.05.2021. Additionally, the Petitioners had submitted a representation regarding the grant of weightage in their postgraduate admissions to the Upper Príncipal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, on 06.09.2024. (Annexures P/6, P/7 & P/8 of the Writ Petition) 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that a state-specific merit list was prepared on 28.10.2024. Subsequently, the Board issued Advertisement No. BCECEB (PGMAC) 2024/01 dated 03.11.2024, inviting applications based on the NEET-PG 2024 merit list for participation in the admission counselling for the 2024 session. Along with this advertisement, the Board also released the "Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling Prospectus 2024." It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Health Department, Government of Bihar, through Letter No. 777(1) dated 11.11.2024, directed the Board to grant a 20% weightage benefit in postgraduate course admissions to medical officers/doctors appointed under Order No. 391(2) dated 24.03.2022. (Annexure P/9 of the Writ Petition) 9. Subsequently, the Board issued Advertisement No. BCECEB (PGMAC) - 2024/04 dated 14.11.2024, informing candidates about the process of online counselling as per the seat matrix. After duly understanding the rules outlined in the advertisement, the Petitioners registered for counselling and submitted their respective choices for seats in government medical colleges offering MD and MS courses. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 opted for programs in General Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopaedics, Dermatology, etc., and submitted their choices on 20.11.2024 and 19.11.2024, respectively. Whereas, Petitioner No. 3 opted for Radiology, ENT, Anaesthesiology, and Psychiatry and submitted his choices on 20.11.2024. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 opted for programs in General Medicine, General Surgery, Orthopaedics, Dermatology, etc., and submitted their choices on 20.11.2024 and 19.11.2024, respectively. Whereas, Petitioner No. 3 opted for Radiology, ENT, Anaesthesiology, and Psychiatry and submitted his choices on 20.11.2024. All the Petitioners downloaded their rank cards, and at this stage, they were granted a 20% weightage on their percentile marks obtained in the NEET-PG 2024 examination, as per the policy decision of the State Government. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 was awarded a total of 95.7113349 percentile marks and secured 179th rank in the Unreserved Category. Petitioner No. 2 was awarded a total of 94.1729706 percentile marks and secured 48th rank in the EWS Category. Petitioner No. 3 was awarded a total of 72.8804454 percentile marks and secured 269th rank in the BC Category. (Annexures P/10, P/11 Series, and P/12 Series of the Writ Petition). 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Health Department, Government of Bihar, vide Letter No. 813(1) dated 20.11.2024, addressed to the Board, withdrew its earlier Letter No. 777(1) dated 11.11.2024, which had granted a 20% weightage for admission to postgraduate courses as per Order No. 391(2) dated 24.03.2022. Furthermore, the Health Department directed the Board to take necessary action concerning Order No. 391(2) dated 24.03.2022, in light of the provisions of Notification No. 1037(2) dated 27.08.2013 and Notification No. 695(2) dated 17.06.2014, issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar. (Annexure P/13 of the Writ Petition) 11. It is pertinent to mention that Notification No. 1037(2) dated 27.08.2013, issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar, provides a detailed list of "remote and difficult areas" in a tabular form, which is subject to modification by the State Government or the Competent Authority from time to time Furthermore, Notification No. 695(2) dated 17.06.2014, issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar, was passed in light of Notification No. 62052 dated 15.02.2012, issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI). This notification clearly specifies that doctors who have served for three years or more in health institutions designated as remote or difficult areas will be eligible for 50% of the diploma course seats. (Annexure P/14, Annexure P/15 of the Writ Petition) 12. This notification clearly specifies that doctors who have served for three years or more in health institutions designated as remote or difficult areas will be eligible for 50% of the diploma course seats. (Annexure P/14, Annexure P/15 of the Writ Petition) 12. Learned counsel further submits that following the withdrawal of weightage through Letter No. 813(1) dated 20.11.2024, Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 3 submitted representations before the Health Department, requesting the continuation of the 20% weightage benefit. However, no decision was made or communicated to the Petitioners regarding their request (Annexure P/16 of the Writ Petition) 13. Learned Counsel submits that, based on Letter No. 813(1) dated 20.11.2024, the Board issued Advertisement No. 2024/06 dated 24.11 2024, notifying the revised merit list and rank cards for PG Course admission Candidates were instructed to download their revised rank cards and make necessary modifications to their choices of health institutions for online counselling for the aforementioned PG admission course. (Annexure P/17 and P/18 Series of the Writ Petition). 14. In these newly issued rank cards, the Board entirely withdrew the 20% weightage that was previously granted to the Petitioners, resulting in a significant reduction in their total marks and ranks. Consequently, Petitioner No. 1, who had earlier secured a rank of 179 in the Unreserved Category with 95.7113349 percentile marks, was now placed at rank 780 with 83.2593855 percentile marks. Petitioner No. 2, who was earlier ranked 48 in the EWS category with 94.1729706 percentile marks, was now placed at rank 128 with 81.8697172 percentile marks. Similarly, Petitioner No. 3, who was earlier ranked 269 in the BC category with 72.8804454 percentile marks, was now placed at rank 336 with 58.8084365 percentile marks. Despite this setback, the Petitioners once again submitted their choices for medical colleges and PG courses for online counselling, following the same selection process as their previous counselling sessions on 19.11.2024 and 20.11.2024. 15. Thereafter, first online counselling took place on 30.11.2024 and unfortunately these petitioners were not allotted any seats of their respective choices in Govt Colleges for Post Graduate Courses. 16. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed their first Supplementary Affidavit, bringing on record the statement of vacant seats for the second round of counselling under PG- MAC 2024, which commenced on 17.12.2024, as uploaded on the website of BCECEB, Patna. 16. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed their first Supplementary Affidavit, bringing on record the statement of vacant seats for the second round of counselling under PG- MAC 2024, which commenced on 17.12.2024, as uploaded on the website of BCECEB, Patna. Further, the Petitioners filed a second Supplementary Affidavit, submitting that a coordinate bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2024, directed the Respondents to keep two seats vacant in the General Category and one seat in the Backward Class Category, as per availability. Based on this order, the Petitioners submitted a representation on 22.12.2024 before BCECEB and the Health Department, Government of Bihar, requesting compliance with the Court's directive dated 20.12.2024 However, despite the Court's order, the Board failed to reserve the specified seats in the second round of counselling held on 23 12.2024. (Annexure P/23 and P/25 of the Writ Petition) 17. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that on 08.01.2025, the Board has issued notices bearing Advertisement No. 2024/11 and 2024/12 for the third round of counselling for allotment of seats under PGMAC 2024, and the seat matrix of the third round of counselling of PGMAC 2024. (Annexure P/27 and P/28 of the Writ Petition) 18. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the third Supplementary Affidavit stating that on the 04.02.2025 the BCECEB has declared result of third round of counselling and has fixed the dates for taking admission from 05.02.2025 and 07.02.2025 vide Notice No. 2024/19 dated 03.02.2025. (Annexure P/33 and P/34 of the Writ Petition) 19. Learned Counsel further submits that on the basis of above result dated 04.02.2025, Petitioner no. I is entitled for admission to PG Degree Course for Orthopaedics in PMC, Lakhisarai and Petitioner no. 2 is entitled for admission to PG Degree Course of General Surgery at ANMMC, Gaya (and also for other seats as per their merit), if they are granted benefit of weightage of 20%. 20. Hence, aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court seeking the reliefs as mentioned herein. 21. The Learned Counsel further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1408 relevant paras are mentioned herein below - 19. 21. The Learned Counsel further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A. Bihar University and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1408 relevant paras are mentioned herein below - 19. It has been time and again held in judicial verdicts that the selection process is bound by the terms and conditions of an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates. Unless it can be demonstrated that an advertisement has been issued contrary to any Statute or the applicable rules, it is binding on all the participants to the point that not even the Selection Committee has the jurisdiction to lay down a separate yardstick or basis for selection as that would be tantamount to legislating rules of selection. It is equally well settled that once the process of selection commences, the criteria prescribed in the advertisement for conducting the selection of the eligible candidates cannot be altered. There is sound logic behind the same which is that if the selection criteria is tinkered with in midstream, say for example by lowering the standards, a party can have a legitimate grievance that had it known that the criteria would be reduced subsequently, it too could have applied for the said post 21. In Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85 , this Court highlighted the fact that any power of relaxation of the stipulated selection procedure ought to be mentioned in the advertisement in the following words:- "29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [Emphasis added] (Also refer: Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University (2022) 8 SCC 713 ) 22. It is also a part of settled service jurisprudence that merely by applying for a post pursuant to an advertisement, a candidate does not automatically acquire any vested right of selection. He only acquires a right for being considered for selection strictly in accordance with the extant rules. This Court has held in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157 as follows: "11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature." [Emphasis added] (Also refer: Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel v. State of Gujarat 2023 SCC Online SC 167) 22. Further, once an advertisement has been issued and the selection criteria prescribed, there is little scope for relaxing the norms, more so. by the Selection Committee unless and until it can be adequately demonstrated that it had the power to do so. We may allude to a decision of this Court in Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission and B. Swapna (2005) 4 SCC 154 which highlights the adverse consequences of interfering with the criteria of selection laid down under the rules in the following words: "14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion eg minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only (See P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 4111990 SCC (L&S) 163 (1990) 12 ATC 727] and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig [(1999) | SCC 544 1999 SCC (L&S) 325].) 15. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for relaxation of norms. Although the Court must look with respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [ (1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised. [Emphasis added] 23. The power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised. [Emphasis added] 23. Thereafter the Counsel for the petitioner further mentioned the reference of the case of Uday Pratap Singh and Ors. vs The State of Bihar and Ors, reported in 1994 Suppl (3) SCC 451 , the relevant para of this case has been cited herein below for the reference- 6. By a catena of decisions of this Court, it is now well-settled that by an executive order the statutory rules cannot be whittled down nor can any retrospective effect be given to such executive order so as to destroy any right which became crystallised in this connection, it is profitable to refer a decision of this Court in T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana [ 1986 Supp SCC 584 (1987) 2 ATC 595 AIR 1987 SC 415 ] wherein it is held that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot affect or impair vested rights, unless it is specifically so provided in the statutory rules concerned It is obvious that an executive direction stands even on a much weaker footing. It is true, as laid down in Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India [(1973) 3 SCC1 1973 SCC (L&S) 1], that effect of upgradation of a post is to make the incumbent occupy the upgraded post with all logical benefits flowing therefrom and can be treated as promoted to the post. Still it cannot be gainsaid that no retrospective effect could be given to any merger of erstwhile lower branch into higher branch in the cadre so as to affect the vested rights of incumbents already occupying posts in the erstwhile higher branch of the cadre. In the present case it has to be kept in view that the contesting respondents were directly recruited and appointed in the Senior Branch on 12-5- 1974 and 25-5-1974 respectively, while the appellants were appointed on 2-11-1975 in the merged cadre. It is true that their order of appointment purports to give them appointment retrospectively from 1-4-1974 but such effect cannot be given so as to destroy the seniority rights of the writ petitioners, respondents herein, who were inducted as direct recruits in the Senior Branch prior to 2-11-1975. It is true that their order of appointment purports to give them appointment retrospectively from 1-4-1974 but such effect cannot be given so as to destroy the seniority rights of the writ petitioners, respondents herein, who were inducted as direct recruits in the Senior Branch prior to 2-11-1975. The earlier decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Kartik Charan Jha case [W.P. Nos. 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982, decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] was rightly distinguished by the Division Bench in the present case as in Jha case [W.P. Nos. 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982, decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] the direct recruits were inducted much after 2-11-1975 when the mergees got their Junior Branch's appointments upgraded to the combined merged cadre and became a part and parcel of the Senior Branch earlier to these direct recruits, while in the present case all the contesting respondents had entered the Senior Branch much prior to 2-11-1975 as seen above. Therefore, they were entitled to be treated as seniors to the appellants. It is true that against earlier decision of the High Court, special leave petition was rejected by this Court but as it was not a speaking order, it cannot be said that this Court had put its imprimatur on the observations found in paragraph 14 of the Judgment in Jha case [W.P. Nos. 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982. decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] which we have referred to earlier As held in the decision of this Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [ (1986) 4 SCC 146 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 740 AIR 1986 SC 1780 ] when special leave petition is summarily rejected, it occasions no merger of the order of the lower court in the order of the Supreme Court, and even such an order can be challenged in the High Court It is true that even the review petition filed against the decision in Jha case W.P. Nos. 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982, decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] was rejected by the High Court. 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982, decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] was rejected by the High Court. But that is neither here nor there It is not possible to agree with the observations of the High Court in Jha case [W.P. Nos 4827 of 1984 & 2335 of 1982, decided on 8.4.1986 (Pat HC)] made in paragraph 14 that on account of the merger, the erstwhile incumbents in Junior Branch became substantively appointed to the merged cadre with effect from 1-4-1974. That observation runs counter to the well- established legal position that by executive fiat no such retrospective appointments can be given to any incumbent so as to destroy the seniority of employees who had entered the cadre much prior to their entry. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty [ (1991) 2 SCC 295 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 472 (1991) 16 ATC 467] for submitting that a policy decision to merge the two branches of a cadre cannot be subjected to a judicial review is also of no avail to the learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that in that case the Court was not concerned with the consideration about any retrospective effect of such a policy decision. Similarly, the decision of this Court in Nirmal Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar [ 1988 Supp SCC 107 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 457 (1988) 6 ATC 881], which laid down that in the absence of any statutory rules seniority can be reckoned in the common cadre considering all the incumbents, also cannot be of any avail to the appellants as at the relevant time when the respondents entered the cadre as direct recruits, the erstwhile rules were already holding the field, and the appellants were not on the scene. On the other hand, pursuant to the merger of both these branches fresh rules were required to be framed under Article 309 of the Constitution even after 1-4-1975 and which were not framed till the appellants entered the merged cadre. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dr S Krishna Murthy [ (1989) 4 SCC 689 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 23: (1989) 11 ATC 892] for submitting that there is no fundamental right of anyone to a particular seniority. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dr S Krishna Murthy [ (1989) 4 SCC 689 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 23: (1989) 11 ATC 892] for submitting that there is no fundamental right of anyone to a particular seniority. This decision also cannot be of any assistance to the appellants as in the present case as rightly found by the High Court if the appellants who entered the merged cadre of the Senior Branch only on 2-11-1975 are to be treated as senior to the respondents who had entered the Senior Branch as direct recruits prior thereto, the respondents would clearly get their constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 violated. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly relied upon the judgment of this court passed in the case bearing LPA No. 255- 256 of 2020, wherein this court vide order dated 28.05.2020 considered the both the Notification No. 1037 dated 27.08.2013 and Notification No. 695 dated 17.06.2014 while deciding the question as to whether Notification dated 27.08.2013 and 17.06.2014 actually grant benefit of incentive or not was pleased to refer Para 63 which has been reiterated herein below: 63. Mere reading of two Notifications, it is apparent that Notification dated 27.08.2013 was issued to grant incentive of 10% to 30% in marks obtained in NEET Examination to the in service doctors of the State Government who had served in remote/difficult areas from one year to three years or more for admission in P.G. Degree Course in view of Proviso to 9(IV) of Regulation whereas Notification dated 17.06.2014 was issued to provide reservation of 50% in P.G. Diploma Course to in-service Doctor who served in rural areas for three years. 50% reservation in P.G. Diploma Course to doctors serving in rural areas is mandatory and State has only to notify remote/difficult areas for said purpose. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court upheld the stand of the Medical Council of India (MCI) that the terms "remote," "distant," and "rural areas" under Clauses 9(4) and 9(8) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (PGME) Regulations, 2000 (as amended in 2018) hold identical meaning and interpretation. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court upheld the stand of the Medical Council of India (MCI) that the terms "remote," "distant," and "rural areas" under Clauses 9(4) and 9(8) of the Postgraduate Medical Education (PGME) Regulations, 2000 (as amended in 2018) hold identical meaning and interpretation. Consequently, once the State Government has identified these areas for granting 50% reservation in postgraduate diploma courses under Clause 9(8), the same notification can be utilized for granting weightage under the proviso to Clause 9(4) of the said Regulations. Furthermore, this Hon'ble Court held that the Notification dated 17.06.2014, although issued in the context of Clause 9(8) of the PGME Regulations, 2002 of the MCI, must be applied for the purpose of conferring benefits to doctors under the proviso to Clause 9(4). Additionally, the term "rural area" must be read in conjunction with and as part of the Notification dated 27.08.2013. 25. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 & 5 submits that it is apt to mention here that the following facts, relevant for adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions under reply: a. Letter No 739/2024 dated 02.06.2024 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Bihar. Patna was spent under the signature of the Officer-on- special Duty, BCECE Board for approval of the draft of the prospectus w.r.t POST GRADUATE MEDICAL ADMISSION COUNSELLING (PGMAC) 2024, for conducting counselling of State quota seats in Govt/Private Medical Colleges in Bihar on the basis of result of NEET-PG (MD/MS/PGT)-2024 conducted by the National Board Examination, New Delhi (Annexure R4/A). b. After making necessary amendments/corrections in the prospectus, approval was granted by letter no. 700(1) dated 14.10.2024 issued under the signature of the Controller, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna, addressed to the Officer-on-Special Duty, BCECE Board. In column-3 of the aforesaid letter it was mentioned that by the Departmental Letter No. 1314(2) dated 20.09.2024 a decision has been taken regarding giving the benefit of weightage for admission in post graduate course to the general Medical Officers appointed on Contract against the floating post, having served for two years in Rural areas. (Annexure R3/B) c. A letter was issued bearing letter no. 1637/2024 dated 16.10.2024 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. (Annexure R3/B) c. A letter was issued bearing letter no. 1637/2024 dated 16.10.2024 addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, mentioning therein inter-alia that in column-3 of the letter no 700 (1) (Annexure-R/B to dated 14.10 2024 this counter affidavit) letter no 1314 (2) dated 20.09.2024 has been referred whereby a decision has been taken regarding giving the benefit of weightage for admission in post graduate course to the general Medical Officers appointed on Contract against the floating post, having served for whereas in column two years in Rural Areas, of the no 5.4 (a) (1) approved prospectus it is mentioned: "50% Graduate seats of the Post Courses, Diploma available in Govt. Medical Colleges reserved of Bihar, will be Bihar Health Services Doctor as well as Contractual Doctors in the of Bihar Govt. Service, who have served for at least three years in remove and difficult areas of the state notified as per Health Department, Govt. of Bihar vide notification no. 2@dksVZ -59/13-695 (2)/ Lok0 fnukad ,17.06.2014." Similarly, in column 5.4 (b) (i) it has been mentioned that: ……. incentive marks upto maximum terms of Regulation 9 (iv) issued by the MCI notification no.MCI-18(1)-2018- Med./100818 dated 05.04.2018 will be provided for admission in PG degree courses to the Medical Officers who are in service of Bihar Govt. Public authority in remote/difficult 30% in area…. It was also pointed out in the said letter that the result of the NEET- PG-2024 provided in National Board of Examinations (NBE), the marks of the candidates were not made available by the NBE and therefore in that situation it is not clear as to how the incentive marks will be calculated. (Annexure R3/C) d. In the light of the aforesaid letter no. 1637/2024 dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure-R3/C to this counter affidavit), column 5.4 (a) (v) has been incorporated in the prospectus as mentioned hereunder: "As communicated by the Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar vide letter number- l0l00@i0fu0 -06/2024-700(1) dated 14 10 2024 that decision taken vide department letter no. 1314 (2) dated benefit of 21.09. 2024 weightage for admission in Post Graduate Medical Courses so those doctors who served in rural area for at least 2 years against floating post of medical officer (contractual) will be given." (Anxure R3/D) e. A notice was published through no. 1314 (2) dated benefit of 21.09. 2024 weightage for admission in Post Graduate Medical Courses so those doctors who served in rural area for at least 2 years against floating post of medical officer (contractual) will be given." (Anxure R3/D) e. A notice was published through no. BCECEB (PGMAC)-2024/01 inviting form online from the interested advertisement dated 03 11.2024 application in prescribed qualified. NEET-PG-2024 eligible and candidates on the basis of merit list of NEET-PG-2024 for appearing at the Post Graduate Medical Admission Counselling (PGMAC)-2024 in order to selection of candidates for admission in Ist Year Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses in Govt/Private Medical colleges of Bihar. (Annexure R3/E) f. In response to letter no 1637/2024 dated 16.10.2024 of the BCECE Board (Annexure-R3/C to this counter affidavit), letter number- l0l0&1@i0fu0 -06/2024-777(1) dated 11.11.2024, was issued under the signature of Controller Examination, Health Department. Bihar Patna, informing the Officer-on-Special Duty, B???? Board that the steps should be taken for providing the benefit of 20% weightage for enrolment in Post Graduate courses to the doctors who were appointed and posted by the order contained in Memo No. 391(2) dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure-P3 to the writ petition) of the Health Department after completing two years of service. (Annexure R3/F) g. On the basis of the letter no. 813 (1) dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure-R3/G series to this counter affidavit) revised Rank card of PGMAC (Degree)-2024 was issued (Annexure-P/18 series to the writ petition). 26. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3 submits that by the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in this case, this court has directed the State to consider the decision of the Division Bench dated 28.05.2020 passed in LPA 255 of 2020 for the applicability of the Notification No. 1037(2) dated 27.08.2013 as well as Departmental Notification No. 712(2) dated 20.06.2014 to the Medical Officer appointed on floating post. It is pertinent to mention here that aforesaid LPA 255-256 of 2020 have been preferred by the State of Bihar aggrieved with the Order dated 27.04.2020 passed in CWJC No. 15523/2018. 27. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3 submits that thereafter in light of direction of this court in the LPA No. 255/2020, the under Secretary, Health Department, Govt. 27. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 & 3 submits that thereafter in light of direction of this court in the LPA No. 255/2020, the under Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar vide Departmental Letter No. 623(1) dated 26.06.2020 had already requested the examination controller, B.C.E.C.E Board Patna, to ensure compliance of the order passed in the LPA No. 255/2020 also taking into account the Departmental Notification No. 1037 (2) dated 27.08.2013 as well as Departmental Notification No. 712(2) dated 20.06.2014 with a further request to make necessary amendment in PG Prospectus and also prepare revised merit list. (Annexure R/A) 28. Learned Counsel further submitted that the officer on Special Duty, BCECE Board, Patna vide Ref. No. 1637/2024 dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure R/G) addressed to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Health Department, Bihar sought guidelines on the issue of grant of weightage to General Medical Officers (Contractual) who have served for two years in rural area as the Board is facing difficulty or confusion in giving the benefit of weightage in view of the following provisions - Clause 5.4 (a)(i) of the approved prospectus -"50% seats of the Post Graduate Diploma Courses, available in Govt. Medical Colleges of Bihar, will be reserved of Bihar Health Services Doctor as well as Contractual Doctors in the Bihar Govt. Service, who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas of the State notified as per Health Department, Govt. of Bihar vide Notification No. 2/Court-59/13-695(2)/Swa., dated 17.06.2014" Clause 5.4 (b) (i) of the approved prospectus - Incentive marks upto maximum 30% in terms of Regulation 9 (iv) issued by the MCI Notification No. MCI 18(1)-2018-Med./100818 dated 05.04.2018 will be provided for admission in PG Courses to the Medical Officers who are in service of Bihar Govt. @ Public authority in remote/difficult area......." 29. Lastly, it is manifest from the above facts and circumstances that petitioners, who were appointed on contract basis pursuant to Departmental Memo No. 391(2) dated 24.03.2022 are having difficulty in getting 20% weightage marks in PG admission in view of the condition laid down under earlier Departmental Notification No. 695(2) dated 17.06.2014 to the following effect "remote and difficult areas identified for the purpose of 50% seat in Diploma Course to such medical Officers who have worked there years or more in all health centres barring medical centres/hospitals situated in State Headquarter and District Headquarter." 30. Heard the parties at length. 31. It is an admitted fact that earlier the petitioners were granted the benefit of 20% weightage based on their successfully completion of two years of contractual service in terms of the letter no.777(1) dated 11.11.2024, but thereafter, a Letter bearing No.813(1) dated 20.11.2024, was issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Health Department, Bihar by which Letter No.777(1) dated 11.11.2025 was withdrawn and subsequently 20% weightage has been removed. Therefore, the petitioners have not made themselves in the merit list for the admission in PG-MAC. 32. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State Government/Respondent No.2 & 3, in which it has been stated that in light of the direction of this Court vide order dated 28.05.2020 passed in LPA No.255-256/2020, the Under Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar in the departmental letter No.623(1) dated 26.06.2020 had already requested the Examination Controller of BCECEB, Patna to comply with the order of this Court passed in LPA No.255- 256/2020 and also take into account the Departmental Notification No.1037(2) dated 27.08.2013 as well as the Departmental Notification No.712(2) dated 20.06.2014 with a further request to make necessary amendment and also prepare revised merit list of PGMAC 2024. 33. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, I direct the respondent no.4 and 5 to give weightage of 20% to the petitioners and revise the entire result within a period of 15 days from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order. 34. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application stands allowed.