WA 267/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K.GOEL HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY ( Goel, J) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.1.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP( C) No.5384/2011 dismissing the writ petition of th e appellant filed against the order of initiation of a fresh process of selectio n for appointment of Teachers on contractual basis. Vide advertisement dated 1.7.2010, applications were invited for engagement of a dditional teachers in various subjects including Social Science in Dhalpur Hig her Secondary School in the district of Lakhimpur. A Selection Committee was con stituted which recommended appointment of the appellant as contractual teache r in the subject of Social Science placing him at Sl. No.1. The Deputy Commissi oner, Lakhimpur who was the appointing authority did not accept the recommendati on and directed initiation of a fresh process of selection vide the impugned ord er dated 15.9.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petition alleging that the directio n of the Deputy Commissioner was arbitrary and the complaint made by the Princi pal that the selection process was not fair was not factually correct. In reply thereto, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Additional De puty Commissioner on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur stating that o n receipt of the complaint of the Principal, an enquiry was held by the Circle O fficer, Narayanpur Revenue Circle who reported that the complaint of the Princip al may not be well founded. However, the Deputy Commissioner, in the interest o f fair selection, directed for conducting the fresh interview. Accordingly, the interview is proposed to be held on the subject whereof the appellant is free to apply. The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the issues raised held that the report of the Circle Officer was silent with regard to the marks of the app ellant (writ petitioner) and other candidates in the interview. It was observed that even though the impugned order does not elaborately assign any reason as to why fresh interview was directed to be conducted, with the wide variation in the marks of the candidates , fresh interview might be justified and the conclu sion of the Deputy Commissioner was not unjustified and unreasonable. Mr Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that mere selection may not confer any right for appointment , but the decision not to appoint a person after due selection cannot be arbitrary. In view of the enquiry report rejecting the complaint of the Principal, the Deputy Commissioner was not justif ied in ignoring the selection and directing fresh selection, he argued. We are unable to accept this submission. It is not the case of the appellant tha t the order of the Deputy Commissioner is malafide or for extraneous considerat ions. According to the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner did not take into cons ideration the enquiry report. However, in view of the affidavit-in-opposition sp ecifically stating that the enquiry report was duly taken into consideration and though the reasons are not mentioned in the impugned order, the variation in th e marks of the candidates probabilise the allegations in the complaint and the impugned order was passed in the interest of fair selection. The learned coun sel for the appellant is unable to rebut the view taken by the learned Single Ju dge. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant expresses apprehension that the appellant ’s approach to this Court on the issue may cause prejudice against him in the f resh process. The apprehension cannot be considered to be justified. We are hop eful that the fresh selection will be conducted with due fairness and objectivit y and after due consideration of candidature of all the candidates. No costs.