Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.P. Gupta, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) Appointment of respondent-5 as Shiksha Mitra has been challenged on the ground that he secured lower marks than petitioner but has been given preference simply because he was B.Ed. though preferential qualification is applicable only when marks secured by candidates are equal.
(3.) However, I find no force in the submission for the reason that it is always the language of relevant provision providing preferential qualification as to whether preference is to be given to the exclusion of others or it is applicable when the two persons are equal. This is what has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Daya Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2007 5 ADJ 359, wherein it was held as under: "In the event, the rule provides a mere preference, it will mean that the candidates concerned will have to have equal marks to begin with and then one amongst so many, will be given a preference. As against that, if there is an en bloc priority given to a category, that will have to be preferred irrespective of the marks obtained.";