WP(C) 1730/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. R. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sahu , learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl . Sr. Govt. Advocate. I have also heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel re presenting the respondent No.6. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question th e selection and appointment of the respondent No.6 as G.P. Accounts Assistant. T he prayer of the petitioner is to setting aside and quashing the appointment and to appoint the petitioner in consideration of the experience he had gathered wo rking wage basis as Accounts Assistant. As regard the plea of the petitioner that he was appointed to work as G. P. Accounts Assistant on wage basis, the petitioner has enclosed the Annexure-1 certificate dated NIL purportedly issued by the Secretary, Aradhal G.P., Dhemaji certifying his appointment on wage basis since 2nd April, 2007. The appointment in question pursuant to the selection is under the scheme called NREGA. The pet itioner duly participated in the selection but he having failed to qualify in th e same, has called in question the appointment of the respondent No.6. According to the petitioner, he being an experienced hand, ought to have been given preference in the matter of selection and appointment. In this conne ction, the petitioner has referred to the guidelines for appointment under the N REGA scheme. The official and private respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which the plea of the petitioner that he was engaged on wage basis has been denied. I t has been stated that the petitioner was never appointed on wage basis and no r emuneration was also paid to him. It has also been stated that the G.P. Secretar y, who has issued the certificate mentioned above, was not authorized to make an y such appointment and also to issue such certificate. As regards the selection, it has been stated that in the selection, while the petitioner secured 42.58 ma rks in aggregate, the respondent No.6 secured 49.23 marks in aggregate. Therefor e, the respondent No.6 was recommended for appointment. The respondent No.6 has also filed an affidavit, more or less, adopted the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondents. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner had gained experience working on wage basis, preference on account of such experience will come into play only if the re are equal marks in respect of two candidates. In the instant case, the petiti oner has secured 42.58 marks as against the respondent No.6 secured 49.23 in agg regate, there is no question of giving any preference to the petitioner. Moreove r, the respondents have denied his engagement on wage basis by any authorized pe rson. For all the aforesaid reason, no mandamus can be issued to appoint the petitione r. Consequently, there is also no question of setting aside and quashing the app ointment of respondent No.6. Writ petition is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs.