1. (Per: Honble the Chief Justice) This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the common judgment and order dated 28th January 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in so far as CWJC No. 17804 of 2009* is allowed.

2. The appellants are 18 of the defending respondent nos. 6 to 32 in the Writ Petition. The subject matter of dispute is the selection and appointment of the appellants as Principals in the constituent colleges of the respondent-Magadh University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). The facts leading to the present Appeal are as under: On 25th October 2008, an advertisement was published under the name of the Vice Chancellor of the University calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment on 22 vacant posts of Principal in its constituent colleges. Of the 22 vacancies advertised, 6 were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 1 for Scheduled Tribe candidate and 7 for Extremely Backward Class candidates. Eight vacancies were available for General Category candidates. Against the 22 vacancies advertised, the University, under its Notification dated 8th June 2009, published a select list comprising 23 General Category candidates. 14 Extremely Backward Class candidates and 12 Scheduled Caste-candidates. Against the vacancy reserved fdr Scheduled Tribe candidate, no application was received. Pursuant to the said select list, under its Notification dated 9th June 2009, the University made 8 appointments in General Category, 2 in Backward Class II category, 1 in the category of Sikh minority, 7 in the category of Extremely Backward Class and 6 appointments in the category of Scheduled Caste. Thus, against the 22 posts advertised, the University made 24 appointments.

3. The University made appointment in the categories of Backward Class II, Other Backward Class and the Sikh minority without advertising such reservation. The University made two more appointments on 27th August 2009. The appellants are 18 of the 27 selected candidates.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent nos. 1 to 8 filed above CWJC No. 17804 of 2009* under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. The petitioners alleged that the recruitment process was manipulated. The final select list was altered at the instance of the Vice Chancellor of the University. The select list was prepared not in the order of merit but category wise. Thus, the meritorious candidates in the reserved categories, who should have been included in the select list for the General Category, were empanelled as reserved category candidates. The appointments in the categories of Backward Class II, Other Backward Class and Sikh minority were made in absence of such reservation declared for the said categories obviously with a view to accommodating the said candidates. The overall result portrayed that the selected candidates were given undue advantage by awarding more marks (in the range of 80% to 90%) at the interview.

6. The petition was contested by the University and the appellants. According to the University, the selection was made after due recruitment process. The Interview Committee was constituted in consonance with the statutes. The Interview Committee included experts from the other States and the Universities. The appellants individually defended their appointment.

7. The learned single Judge, after scrutinizing the result sheet produced on the record, considering the marks awarded to each candidate under the other criteria like academics and published research papers; and the marks awarded at the. interview upheld the allegations made by the writ petitioners. The learned single Judge found that the Selection Committee had not prepared a combined merit list of all candidates. It was not the case of the University that such a combined merit list was prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of which a panel of the selected candidates could have been prepared; that the Vice Chancellor of the University had, in