SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JJ.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred Under Clause 10 of this Court Rules against the judgment and ordeV dated 27-4-2006 passed by a learned single judge of this court whereby a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5823 of 2003 preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. It may be relevant to note that at the hearing stage no challenge was made to the selection and appointment of respondent nos. 9 and 10 who were selected and appointed on the basis of provisions of reservation.

3. Shorn of unnecessary factual details the dispute has finally boiled down between the appellant, respondent no.8 and the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges), Service Commission ( hereinafter referred to as the Commission) as to whether the appellant should have been awarded 4 marks more by the respondent Commission in course of interview on the basis of her claim for publication of her article and for higher degree of Ph.D 2 marks each on both the heads. The further grievance of the appellant/petitioner is against respondent no.8 that she should not have been granted 6 marks against paper publication, higher degree and teaching experience.

4. The recruitment process in question was for making large number of appointments on the post of lecturers in various Constituent Colleges in the State of Bihar prior to its bifurcation. The advertisement was issued in the year 1997 by the Commission. Both the contesting parties i.e. the appellant and respondent no.8 applied for appointment as lecturer in the department of Home Science. The Commission made its recommendation on 29-11-2002 which included the names of Respondent Nos.8,9 and 10 for appointment on the post of lecturer in the department of Home Science of Patna University and accordingly those respondents were appointed by notification of the said university dated 25-6-2003. The appellant as writ petitioner has challenged the recommendation as well as the notification of appointment and made a further prayer before the writ court for a direction to the Commission to place her at serial no.8 of the merit list for lecturers in the department of Home Science and to recommend her name for appointment in Patna University. It is not in dispute that name of the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was also recommended by the Commission leading to her appointment and she is working as a lecturer in Home Science in J.D. Womens College at Patna which is under Magadh University.

5. The learned writ court considered the entire submissions and the factual back ground of the writ petitioner and her rival in detail. It also noticed the claim of the appellant that she should be held entitled for 2 marks for degree of Ph.D. and 2 marks for paper publication. Admittedly, out of 6 marks available for paper publication, higher degree and teaching experience, the writ petitioner has been awarded 2 marks. The difference between the total marks of the appellant and respondent no.8 is less than 4 marks as the appellant has been awarded 83.08 marks in total whereas respondent no.8 has been awarded 86.62 marks. If her claim for 4 marks more had been accepted by the writ court she would have been ordered to be placed above the respondent no.8 and then according to learned counsel for the appellant her preference for Patna University could have been considered prior to preference of respondent no.8 for the same University. In the alternative other submission was also considered by the writ court. The alternative contention was that 4 marks should be deducted from the marks of respondent no.8 as marks were wrongly given to her for paper publications.

6. The writ court noticed the controversy on account of claim for 2 marks for paper publication made by the writ petitioner and on this issue the stand of the rival parties including the counter affidavit of the Commission were considered. The book AHAR SEVA PRABANDHAN was in the name of one Bimla Paul @