JUDGMENT

PATTANAIK, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27-9-1993 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 688 of 1993.

3. Respondent 1 filed the writ petition challenging the selection made by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Dental Officers inter alia on the ground that the selection has been made arbitrarily and is contrary to the positive terms of the advertisement indicating preference to be given for higher dental qualification. It was pleaded before the High Court that an advertisement has been issued in the newspaper on 9-9-1991 for 21 posts of Dental Officers out of which 12 posts were meant for general category, 5 for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Backward Class and 2 for Ex-Servicemen. It was stipulated in the advertisement that preference would be given for higher dental qualification and the minimum qualification for the posts was B.D.S. Respondent 1 who had the qualification of M.D.S. claim entitled to be selected on the basis of higher qualification. It was also pleaded that the Public Service Commission acted arbitrarily in awarding 20 marks out of 100 marks for viva voce, 20 marks for general knowledge and only 21/2 marks for higher qualification. The private respondents who contested the proceedings filed their counter-affidavit stating therein that in the absence of any statutory rule governing the mode of selection for the post of Dental Officer, an expert body like Public Service Commission had awarded different marks and evaluated the respective merit of all the applicants and finally selected the meritorious one and, therefore, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. It was also urged that the selection thus made by the Public Service Commission is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court came to hold that under the advertisement in question, persons having higher qualification of M.D.S. form a class by themselves and, therefore, they are entitled to be selected for the post on the basis of their qualification and the Public Service Commission acted against the spirit and intention of the appointing authority who had laid down the minimum qualification for the job and indicated preference for higher qualification. By referring to the meaning of the expression prefer in different dictionaries, the High Court also held that such persons having preferential qualification are entitled to be selected and appointed unless they are otherwise held to be not suitable. The High Court also further came to the conclusion that the awarding of different marks by the Public Service Commission is arbitrary and irrational. With these conclusions the writ petition having been allowed and Public Service Commission having been directed to forward the names of the respondents, the State has come up in appeal.

4. Mr Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in the absence of any statutory rule when the Public Service Commission is required to select candidates on evaluation of their respective merit, it is but natural for the Commission to evolve a procedure of its own. In evolving such procedure marks are awarded in different aspects and judged from that standpoint the allocation of 100 marks in different aspects of the candidates and thereafter evaluation of the respective merit of the candidates after awarding marks on different aspects, cannot be held to be arbitrary and irrational. The learned counsel further contended that when the appointing authority indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification persons will get preference, it does not tantamount to mean that all persons with higher qualification than the minimum eligible qualification should be selected and appointed ipso facto. The only meaning it would convey is that some preference should be given to those persons having higher qualification. That being the positio