WP(C) 3582/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. KK Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K Konwar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State Counsel, Assam. The learned State counsel has submitted that he is still without the nec essary instructions. However, with reference to the minutes of the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 26.05.2009 pertaining to the selection involv ed, Mr. Ghosh, has submitted that in terms of the norms set out therein, the dec ision not to call the petitioner for the interview, cannot be faulted with. On a perusal of the minutes of the said proceedings, following broad fea tures have emerged: - i) 3% of the total candidates (41959), who had appeared for the written test have been selected on merit basis for appearing in the interview depending upon the cut off marks prescribed category wise. ii) applying the said arithmetic, the number of candidates to be called for the interview is 1260 (rounded up). iii) number of candidates category wise, namely, ST(H), ST(P), SC, OBC/M OBC and General have been worked out. iv) the cut off marks for the aforementioned categories of candidates ha ve also been fixed (as evident from the minutes of the selection committee’s mee ting held on 24.06.2009). In the tentative opinion of this Court, the aforementioned minutes, do n ot spell out in clear terms the norms/criteria applied vis-a-vis the physically handicapped candidates to determine their number to be called for the interview. Further, the marks secured by the petitioner, as such a candidate, in the writ ten examination are presently also not available. In that view of the matter, without prejudice to the rights and contenti ons of the parties, as would be adjudicated upon in due course, it is provided, balancing the competing equities that the petitioner be allowed to participate i n the interview scheduled to be held on 03.09.2009. This order has been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and would not be construed to be a pr ecedent. It is further made clear that the permission accorded to the petitioner to partake in the interview, per se, would not confer on him with any right to c laim selection or appointment to the post involved. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.