WP(C) 156/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. S Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Heard also Mr. J Uddin, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 5. Appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing C ounsel, Health Department, submits that on the basis of the instructions receive d that the present petitioner, who falls under the category of General Candidate s, had secured 88 marks, whereas the cut off mark for calling for viva voce test was 90 marks and it was because of the fact that the petitioner had not secured the required qualifying marks in the written examination, that he was not calle d for interview. As regards the petitioner’s grievance that the respondent No. 5 was called for i nterview despite the fact that he had not passed Biology in Higher Secondary Exa mination, Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel, points out that at the time, when the writ ten examination was held, the mark sheet was not verified, but in the oral exami nation, when the respondent No. 5 appeared, his mark sheet was verified and, on being detected that he had not passed in Biology, he too was not passed failed i n the oral examination and was, consequently, not appointed. Coupled with what have been pointed out above, it is further submitted, on behal f of the State respondents, that all the selected candidates have already been a ppointed. The selected candidates are, admittedly, not parties in the writ petit ion. Situated thus, it is clear that this writ petition cannot be maintained in the a bsence of the selected candidates. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the sa me shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.