MC 2464/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Dr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant as well Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. S. Hussain, learn ed counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. By this application, the applicant/newly impleaded respondent No.11 in the writ petition has prayed for vacating the interim order dated 31/8/09. By the said i nterim order, it was provided that till the returnable date no appointment in th e post of Subject Teacher in Economics in Chirakuti Higher Secondary School, Dhu bri in pursuance of the advertisement dated 3/6/07 shall be made without leave o f this Court. Thereafter, the case was listed on 18/9/09 and 23/10/09 and the interim order wa s extended. The notice upon the respondent No.4 to 10 were sent by Registered Post with A/D on 6/10/09 in the main writ petition. The A/D card is not on record. Since the periods have already been expired, it is presumed that notice upon respondent N os. 4 to 10 is served. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the selection for appoi ntment of subject teacher in Economics in Chirakuti HS School in terms of the ad vertisement dated 3/6/07. The writ petitioner has projected his case in the wri t petition to the effect that out of all the candidates appeared in the selectio n/interview, he was the topper but the authority have illegally reframed from se lecting him for the post. The writ petitioner categorically stated that he appe ared in the interview and selection test in pargarph Nos. 5,6 and 8 of the writ petition. The applicant/respondent No.11 in the writ petition submits that the averments m ade in the writ petition is incorrect and infact the petitioner did not appear i n the interview. The respondent No.5 is the Principal of the school who by fili ng a counter in the writ petition has categorically stated at paragraph Nos. 5 & 7 that only four candidates appeared in the interview and the petitioner did no t appear in the said interview. It is further stated that the application of th e petitioner was rejected as it was found to be defective/incomplete. This Court passed the interim order on 30/8/09 considering the submissions and a verments made in the writ petition to the effect that the writ petitioner duly a ppeared in the interview and did reasonably well and was the best amongst all th e other candidates, which, however, is not found to be correct. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the prima-facie opinion that the writ pe titioner persuaded the Court for an interim order on wrong averments made in the writ petition and the submissions in support thereof. Accordingly, the interim order dated 31/8/09 passed in WP(C)No.3636/09 stands vacated. However, if any appointment is made pursuant to the aforesaid selection/intervie w in question, the said appointment shall be subject to final result of the conn ected writ petition. Misc. case stands disposed of.