WA 207/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The Appellants were not parties to the writ petition bearing W P (C) No.2856/201 0 and yet they have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge date d 16.6.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks leave to file this appeal on be half of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that he has no objection if leave is granted. Accordingly, we grant leave and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. An examination was conducted for recruitment of candidates to the School of Nursing at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital for the session 2009-2010. So me persons were selected for the GNM Training Course and the selection was chall enged by in aforesaid writ petition. 4. It was alleged in the writ petition that there were serious anomalies in the preparation of the select list and therefore, the entire exercise was vitia ted. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit filed before the learned Sing le Judge admitted that there were some anomalies and in fact, the learned Single Judge made a reference to the letter dated 12.3.2010 which mentions the nature of the anomalies. 6. The anomalies were two fold, namely, that the select list was prepared w ithout reference to the merit of the candidates and a physically challenged pers on was not considered for training despite the reservation available. 7. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the letter dated 12.3.2010 are of some importance a nd these paragraphs are reproduced here-in-below: 3. As per the criterias mentioned above one mark sheet was prepared showing the marks against each of the candidate but it was observed that the committee did not evaluate a merit list on the basis of the marks attributed to candidate. Alt hough the scoresheet was signed by each and every member of the committee as wel l as the Chairman. As per the scoresheet a merit list was later prepared in our office upto 48% reservation wise which is enclosed herewith as annexure-1. Secondly the committee also did not consider the reservation against physically challenged candidate. Although there was an applicant viz. Miss Priyanka Bora, D /o. Sri Noren Bora, Jamurai Chukgaon, Pulibor, Jorhat. 4. The Committee has prepared the final selection list without consulting marks obtained in the evaluation list. Since, the selection list prepared by the committee differs from the merit list prepared in accordance with the marks attributed, the admission of selection GNM trainees had been deferred to avoid untoward situation. You are requested kindl y to suggest measures to be taken at the earliest . 8. After examining the entire issue, the learned Single Judge came to the c onclusion that even though there were some anomalies in the selection process, s ince they were not of such a serious nature that they could not be rectified, th e select list was directed to be recast and a fresh select list published on or before 30th June 2010. 9. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge the present appeal is filed and it is pointed out that the entire selection process should b e scrapped and a fresh selection should be made. 10. At this stage it may be mentioned that learned counsel for the responden ts has stated before us that in compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, a fresh select list has been prepared within the prescribed time g iven by the learned Single Judge and that select list is likely to be published any day. 11. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that the fresh select list has been prepared taking into account the merit of the candidates and rectifying th e irregularities noticed in the preparation of the earlier select list. 12. It is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants that not withstanding this, the selection process should scrapped and a fresh selection s hould be made. 13. We are not inclined to lightly interfere with the selection process as i t is a long drawn out process. In our opinion, there are two kinds of anomalies that exist. The first kind is where the very basis of the selection process viti ates it from its inception. The second kind is where the anomaly is in the natur e of an irregularity which is curable and which does not vitiate the entire sele ction process. 14. In our opinion, the present case falls in the second category since the selection list was prepared without reference to the marks obtained by the candi dates. This can be rectified by recasting the select list on the basis of the ma rks obtained by the candidates both in the written examination as well as in the interview conducted. 15. As mentioned above, learned counsel for the respondents has informed us that recasting has taken place and the fresh select list is ready for publicatio n after removing the anomalies. 16. In so far as the physically challenged candidate is concerned, learned c ounsel for the respondents submits that her interest has been taken into conside ration while preparing the select list. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though appellant No.9, S mti Dhruba Tara Tamuli had participated in the interview process but she has not been given any marks in the interview. Learned counsel for the respondents is u nable to respond to this immediately but he assures us that if it is so, appella nt No.9, Smti Dhruba Tara Tamuli will be called for a fresh interview and if she is found entitled for selection, on merit, she will be selected. 18. There is no specific grievance of the remaining 8 (eight) appellants and so no specific direction is required to be given in this regard. 19. Subject to the above i.e. in respect of appellant No.9, Smti Dhruba Tara Tamuli, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view expressed by the l earned Single Judge. The respondents should publish the final select list after taking into account the objection raised by learned counsel for the appellants w ith regard to appellant No.9, Smti Dhruba Tara Tamuli. 20. The writ appeal is disposed of.