WP(C) 241/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U.B.SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, Hifjur Rahman, a son of a retired Headmaster of Nabila Fakuli L.P School for publishing the result of inte rview held on 5.2.2006 in which he appeared in pursuant to the advertisement dat ed 2.12.2005 against Sl. No. 109 with further prayer to appoint him against 10% quota reserved for sons and daughters of the retired Headmasters/Assistant Teac hers. Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned standing Counsel for the Education Department who sub mits that the petitioner cannot be appointed on the basis of the result of the i nterview held on 5.2.2006, as a Division Bench of this Court by an order restra ined the State Government from recruiting any new employees on the basis of the interview held on 5.2.2006 and directed the State Government to appoint the applicants who faced the interview earlier than the petitioner. While responding to the said submission of Mr. Pathak, Mr. Choudhury sub mits that the entire writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the S tate respondents to consider the case of the petitioner subject to he acquired the required marks in the interview and vacancies are available against the 10 % quota reserved for the sons and daughters of the retired Headmasters/Assistant Teachers. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon going through the records, it appears that the petitioner earlier also approached this Court b y way of filing W. P ' 7028 of 2000 and the same was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.12.2000 directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioner. In view of that direction, the authority allowed the petition er to apply for the post as and when advertised. Accordingly, the petitioner app lied for the post in pursuant to advertisement dated 2.12.2005 and appeared in t he interview on 5.2.2006. Whether the result of the said interview would be publ ished or the interview held would be cancelled as a whole is the matter within t he domain of the authorities concerned, the Court has no power to direct them to publish the result of the interview unless the said result is withheld for any collateral purposes or with a bad faith and actions are arbitrary. More so, as the Division Bench of this Court has already restrained the State Government from appointing any candidate on the basis of the recent interv iew as contended by Mr. Pathak, this Court is also not in a position to direct t he respondents to appoint the petitioner against the 10% quota reserved for the sons and daughters of the retired Headmasters/ Teachers. However, in view of the submissions of Mr. Choudhury, the State responde nts are directed to consider the case of the petitioner subject to he acquired t he required marks in the interview and fulfilled the conditions prescribed, agai nst the 10% quota meant for the sons and daughters of the retired Headmasters/As sistant Teachers as and when the authority would go for filling up those posts. It is made clear that the petitioner should not be given preference over the app licants/ persons who are awaiting in the queue prior to him. With the aforesaid order, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.