WP(C) 1858/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Sri Moloy Bora, Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training is personally pres ent before this Court, pursuant to the order dated 24.6.2010. Such personal appe arance was directed because of the non-filing of the affidavit and also for non- production of the relevant records. The Director has stated that all the relevant information were made available to the office of the Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam for the purpose of filing the af fidavit and despite such action taken by the Director no affidavit has been file d. Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the Director has submitted that t he affidavit in fact has been filed yesterday i.e. 24.6.2010 after the order was passed by this Court. It appears that because of the lapses in the office of the Senior Govt. Advocate and for not filing the affidavit in time, the order had to be passed by the Cou rt on 24.6.2010 for the personal appearance of the Director. Mr. Thakur, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam has submitted that for such lap ses in the office of the Senior Govt. Advocate in not filing the affidavit, nece ssary action would be taken against the erring official. Since the affidavit-in-opposition has already been filed and the relevant record s are made available to Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel, the personal appearanc e of the Director is dispensed with. Heard Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. Sarma, le arned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. None appears for respondent No . 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respond ent authorities to appoint him in the post of junior assistant claiming that he was selected for such appointment. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.3.2007 published by the Director, Employment and Craftsmen Training to fill up a number posts of junior assistant in the head of the depar tment, he applied and Roll No. LAZ-3220 was allotted to him. It is also the case of the petitioner that accordingly he appeared in the written test conducted fo r the purpose and the results of such written test was declared on 13.11.2009, w hich was published in the local daily containing the names and the roll Nos. of the successful candidates. According to the petitioner, though the Roll No. LAZ 3220 allotted to the petitioner has been mentioned at Sl. No. 511 of the list of successful candidates, the name of the respondent No. 5 has been mentioned agai nst the said Roll No. According to the petitioner, since such error had crept in such list prepared and published, he represented before the Director for correc tion of such error and for calling him for the viva voce test. The Director did not take any action on such representation for which the petitioner has approach ed this Court with the prayer as noticed above. The respondent No. 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 24.6.2010 contended inter alia that Roll No. LAZ-3220 was allotted to two persons, namely the petit ioner and the respondent No. 5 by mistake and it was the respondent No. 5 who wa s successful in the written test, keeping in view the cutoff mark fixed by the s election committee and accordingly the respondent No. 5’s name appeared in the l ist of successful candidates published on 30.11.2009 who was called for viva voc e test and was ultimately selected for appointment as junior assistant against t he post kept reserved for OBC candidates. Mr. Ghosh, the learned State counsel in support of the contention has also produ ced the decision of the selection committee relating to the cutoff mark and also the answer scripts of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 showing the allotment of same Roll No. and also the marks obtained by them in the written te st. Though no affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 5, Mr. Sarma, learned c ounsel appearing for the said respondent has submitted that because of the mista ke committed by the authority in allotting the same Roll No., to two persons, na mely the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 the dispute has arose and it is the respondent No. 5 who was selected in the written test and also in the viva voce test and hence was selected for appointment to the post of junior assistant. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner as well as the respondents relati ng to the allotment of the same Roll No. to two persons, the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, fixation of cutoff mark and the marks secured by both the cand idates, I have perused the records produced by Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel. It appears from the records produced that the selection committee decided to cal l the candidates for viva voce test five times the number of posts available. Di fferent cutoff marks for different category of candidates were fixed by the sele ction committee for the purpose. The cutoff mark of 60 was fixed by the selectio n committee in respect of the OBC candidates. The answer scripts produced before this Court reveals that the respondent authorities by mistake allotted the same Roll No. being LAZ-3220 to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and bec ause of this mistake all the trouble has started. However, the answer scripts pr oduced reveal that while the petitioner had secured 35 out of 150 marks allotted in the written test, the respondent No. 5 had secured 64 marks. The respondent No. 5 having secured the cutoff mark was called for the viva voce test and accor dingly he was selected for appointment as junior assistant against the post kept reserved for OBC candidates. The petitioner though has claimed that he was sele cted in the written test, such claim is not substantiated by the records. The pe titioner even was not called for the viva voce test. In view of the above, the relief prayed for in the writ petition cannot be grant ed and hence rejected. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cost. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The relevant records as produced are returned to the learned State counsel.