Serial , Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order 05.I II 1o.o4.2oo8\I,\',,) Present: Mr. A. Moulik, Senior Advocat:e with Mr. N. G. Sherpa, Advocate for the Petit:ioners. Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, Government Advocat:e for the State-Respondent Nos.1 to 3. This is a writ petition at t:he instance of two petitioners, namely, Ms. Aroona Pradhan and Ms. Indira Sharma, who were prospective candidates for the posts of Primary Teachers in the State. \' I The first: advertisement dated 16-12-2006 was for 55 posts but thereafter on 26-04-2007 another \ advertisement raised the number of posts to be filled II up to 7i. As such, the point taken in the additional \ I1',I 1 affidavit that an excess number of posts was filled up does not survive. The learned counsel appearing for the writ, petitioners has examined t:he lat:er copy Notificati'on in Court which was supplied on counsel to II counsel basis in t:he Court room. ) Another point raised was that three particular \, II I candidates had only one year training from the Dist:rict Inst:itute of Education and Training, i.e., DIET but the required training was for two years as was \' advertised. I I It is clarified that the requirement for two years I II, was raised to two. from one only from June, 2003 and these t:hree candidates .had already finished their I I I \I\I III training before June, 2003. Naturally they cannot again be admitt:ed for training. Moreover, the writ petitioners do not have any training themselves at all. SerjNo.Orda' DateOfoferOrder Order wi.th SignatureSeveralotherpoints were attempted to braised,likeenquiringwhethertherehasbee Offi.ce Note as toaction(jfany)takenonOrder I I I I Ii enS appropriate allocatjon of marks, whet:her there ha been appropriate carry forward of vacancies and suchlike.Th.ewrjtpetitionerslabourunderthejmpressjonthatanyoreveryfailedcandjdat:eforGovernment service has the right to come to Court and ask questions about each and every particular regardingproperconductandfairassessmentofthecandidates in any written examination or viva voce. They are under the further impression that jf it is done by way of a formal writ petition filed jn Court, the Court almost as a matter of course, calls for affidavits from, theStateandexamjneswhethereachandeverythjng is proper or not. This js a completely wrong jmpressjon of the law and practice of the writ Court. It is for the petitioner, by whatever means available to him, to bring before the Court sufficient facts and circumstances which wHl persuade the Court on a reasonable basis to make an enquiry on the selection process after a pr+.rna facr.e assessment is made by it t:hat such an examination is called for in the interest of fairness and just:ice. Such feeling of the Court to enter into the matter more deeply and to Scrutinise the issue must be more than mere suspicion or Con]-ecture. An enquiry has to be called for on the basis of cogent evidence, documents or circumstances as the case might be. In the inst:ant case, the questi6ns raised are many but the fact:ua| and circuirstantial grounds for persuading the court/` y`t` I \ GO SerjaNo.oOrderI Datefof Order with SignaturetoissuetheRuleIV/.s/.arenil. As such, although the Office Note as to Order action (if any)takenonOrder \ \ ( I I Court has every sympathy for every failed candidates in this land of unemployment, the writ pet:it:ion is dismissed /.n /t.in/ne without any order as to costs.7- ( A. N. Ray, C.J.)(A..ubba,J.)