WP(C) 921/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr. JI Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Gog oi, learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioner was working as a Local Fund Auditor under the establishment of th e respondent authority but due to various litigation in this Court , his service came to an end. This Court vide order dated 27.08.2010 in Writ Appeal No. 85 of 2009 directed the respondent authority to relax the age bar against the petitio ner, for which he was directed to submit the application supported by relevant d ocuments. In the month of July, 2010, the respondent authority published the adv ertisement for filling up of 80 posts of Assistant Audit Officer in the Assam Lo cal Fund Audit Service by fixing the upper age limit of 38 years for general cat egory and 43 years for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes as on 01.01.2010. I n the case of the government servants, the maximum age limit was relaxed up to 45 years inclusive of all age concessions. The respondent authority by the order dated 24.09.2010 under Rule 24 (I) of Assa m Local Fund Audit Service ( Amendment) Rules 1997 duly condoned the age bar of the petitioner along with some other persons. The condonation was done in terms of the directions of this Court. The case of the petitioner is that he could not participate in the selection process as he was not issued the call letter/ Admit card for interview, which was scheduled to be held on 05.02.2 011 and 06.02.2011. He than submitted a representation dated 04.02.2011 to the r espondent No. 2 and requested him to issue his Admit Card so as to enable him to appear in the interview/ selection process. The respondent authority did not ob lige him and he was accordingly prevented from taking part in the interview. The writ petition is contested by the respondent authority by filing their affid avit-in-opposition. The case of the respondent authority which is stated in thei r affidavit is that the task of recruitment examination was entrusted by the res pondent authority to the Assam Institute of Management vide govt. letter dated 1 0.11.2010 and that the admit card issued by the Assam Institute of Management ( AIM)_ was sent to the petitioner under a certificate of posting on 27.01.2011. T he admit card was also uploaded in the Assam government website. The advertiseme nt for written examination was also published on 25.01.2011 in the local newspap er informing that the applicants who did not get their admit card by post in tim e, could download the same from the official website of the government of Assam. The respondent authority claimed that non-receipt of the call letter by the pet itioner, which was sent under certificate of postal is due to circumstances beyo nd their control: it was for the petitioner to approach the AIM in time to apply for issuing duplicate card or to down load the admit card from the govt. websit e. These are the principal contentions taken by the respondent authority for the impugned action/ inaction. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the rival parties. I have also carefully perused the materials on record. In my opinion, no case for interference by this court is made out from the case of the petitioner. The specific case of the respondent authority is that the admit car d was dispatched to the petitioner under a certificate of postal on 27.01.2011. It is also the further case of the respondent authority is that the admit card w as also uploaded in the website of the State government and that it was also mad e known that the applicants who did not receive their admit card in due course o f time to down load the same from the official website of the state government. In my opinion, I have no reason to disbelieve the assertions of facts made by t he respondent authority. If the petitioner, as claimed by him, did not receive t he admit card within a reasonable period of time, he, as a prudent candidate, ou ght to have approached the AIM for issuance of duplicate admit card, but he did not do so. No attempt was also made by him to down load the admit card from the website of the state government. Instead, he claims to have approached the respo ndent No. 2 who was not involved in the recruitment examination as he had alrea dy entrusted the AIM to conduct the exercise . It is not the case of the petitio ner that he was not aware of the fact that the recruitment was being conducted b y AIM and not by the respondent authority. Under the circumstances, I am at a loss to understand as to how he chose to approach the respondent No. 2 instead of AIM fo r issuance of admit card/ duplicate admit card. The learned counsel for the peti tioner however, submits that the respondent No. 2 ought to have informed the pet itioner when he met him that the petitioner should approach the AIM for issuing admit card. In my opinion, the respondent No. 2 did not have any legal obligatio n to go out of the way to give a helping hand to the petitioner. He might have t he moral obligation to give him such information but failure to discharge moral obligation cannot be equalled with failure to discharge legal obligation. Had he been prudent enough to approach respondent No. 2, it is equally expected of him to approach the authority conducting the examination. On taking all these aspec ts into consideration, I find it difficult to accept the story projected by the petitioner. No consequential or legal provision has been violated by the respond ent authority in not entertaining his request for participating in the interview . In view of the above, the impugned inaction of the respondent authority does n ot call for interference of this Court. In the result, there is no merit in the case which is hereby dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective cost