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:

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. 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 N