WP(C) 484/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms J. Huda, learned Central Govt. Counsel representing the Union of India. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department. The petitioner was aspirant for the post of Leprosy Injector, for which, he had responded to the Annexure-A advertisement dated 22.10.2010. However, alt hough his candidature was accepted, but he could not appear in the written test held on 12.12.2010 as he did not receive the call letter. In this connection, th e petitioner has annexed the Annexure-B call letter dated 26.11.2010, by which i ntimation was sent that the written test would be held on 12.12.2010 so as to co ntend that the said call letter was received on 18.12.2010 which was beyond the scheduled date. It is in this circumstance, the petitioner could not appear in t he written test. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which, it has been stated that apart from sending call letters to the individual candidates, the i nterview date and time along with the venue was also circulated through newspape r notice. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Controller of Examinations, Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Services b y its notice dated 7.12.2010 published in the issue of the Assam Tribune dated 8 .12.2010 had informed all the candidates that the written test would be held in various places of Kamrup district on 12.12.2010 from 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. Suc h a course of action was adopted in view of the fact that the large number of ca ndidates were involved. Thus, it is the plea of the respondents that since apar t from sending the call letters, the notice regarding holding of the examinatio n was also notified in the widely circulated newspaper, the petitioner cannot ta ke the plea of non-receipt of notice. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the adv ertisement was published in an Assamese Daily Ajir Dainik Batori Kakot , the au thorities ought to have published the related notice in the same daily instead of publishing the same in another newspaper. On this, Mr. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department submits that there cannot be a co-relation between the publication of the advertisement and notice relating to holding of the written test. He submits that the Englis h daily the Assam Tribune being widely circulated newspaper in the State, the petitioner cannot take the plea of non-receipt of notice. He further submits t hat if for any reason, the call letter did not reach the petitioner within targe t date, for that, the Health department cannot be made responsible. Ms Huda, learned C.G.C. referring to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit submits that since the call letter was sent on 4.12.201 0 under certificate of posting, the petitioner cannot blame the authority for no n-receipt of the same. The written test in question has already been held on 12.12.2010 and the writ petition was filed on 11.1.2011. Although the petitioner did not receive the call letter individually sent to him, but in view of the fact that the int erview date, time and venue was also notified in the newspaper, it cannot be sai d that the petitioner was kept in dark regarding holding of the selection. That apart, there were total 6600 candidates and out of the total candidates, 3926 ca ndidates appeared in the selection throughout the State. In the instant case, w e are concerned with the district of Kamrup, in which the selection was conducte d in various centres. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was prejudiced because of non-receipt of the individual call letter sent to him . In view of the above, no direction can be issued to the respondents to a llow the petitioner to appear in the selection, which was already over on 12.12. 2010. It is submitted that after the written test, the successful candidates wer e called for oral interview on 12.1.2011 and thereafter, on the basis of the fin al selection, 18 (eighteen) selected candidates have also been appointed on 27.1 .2011. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.