WP(C) 2844/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Barua, learned CGC. The facts are narrated in the order dated 20.08.2008. For a ready refer ence, the order dated 20.08.2008 is reproduced below: The instructions placed before the Court would seem to indicate that the petiti oner had secured 44 marks which is the bare minimum qualifying marks for general category candidates. As candidates who had secured 44 marks were more in number than the posts available the respondents had determined the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of their age. Such a course of action has been approved by this Court in certain other writ petitions. The instructions placed before th e Court are to the further effect that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01 .06.1988 whereas the date of birth of the last candidate selected and appointed from the general category candidates who had obtained 44 marks is 03.02.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to controvert the said facts. As such a course of action w ould be possible if the respondents are directed to file an affidavit in the cas e, the Court adjourns the matter for two weeks within which time affidavit of th e respondents will be filed. List after two weeks. Mr. Barua, learned CGC submits that there is no vacant post to accommodate the p etitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the statements made in paragraph-21 of the writ petition, submits t hat since the appointments have been made from the second/ waiting list, the pet itioner is also entitled to get appointment. On the other hand, Mr. Barua, learn ed CGC submits that the said statements will have to be considered in the toucht one of the plea taken in the affidavit in opposition and as has been recorded in the above quoted order dated 20.08.2008. The writ petition is disposed of providing that in the event of any available va cancy, the respondents may examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with his merit position in the select list and also following the applicable yardsti cks and parameters. No opinion is expressed in this regard. Writ petition is disposed of.