WP(C) 4735/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BK SHARMA Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned th e results/select list published on 15.8.2010 for the post of Junior Assistant/LD A (Grade-III). The petitioner has also called in question the written and oral t ests that were conducted towards drawing of final select list. The petitioner, who is an aspirant for the post of Junior Assist ant/LDA appeared in the written examination and was called for an oral interview conducted during the period from 26.6.2009 to 14.7.2009. After participation in the selection process, when he did not find his name included in the select lis t published on 15.8.2010 filed the instant writ petition calling in question the selection process itself. Referring to Annexure-A advertisement dated 5.3.2008, it is the case of the petitioner that since the knowledge of computer was insisted upon in the advertisement with the indication that test of knowledge of computer would be conducted, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to conduct compute r test instead of finalizing the selection only on the basis of written and oral test. In the advertisement, while mentioning about the examination cen ter, it was provided that the written examination and interview would be held in respective districts. There was no mention of any separate computer test. It wa s further provided that the Selection Board reserved the right towards sort list ing of candidates for written examination and interview or both. There was no me ntion of any computer test. It is the language employed under the head ’Mode of Selection’, in the advertisement, the petitioner has placed reliance to agitate the selection was incomplete in absence of any computer test. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been s tated that although the petitioner had submitted technical certificate of comput er diploma, but he failed to submit any experience certificate as sought for by the Selection Board. It has further been stated that the petitioner could not an swer satisfactorily to the queries made to test the knowledge of computer. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that the respondents n owhere spelt out in the advertisement that there would be any separate test on k nowledge of computer. In this connection they have also stated that since there was large number of candidates (28,000), it was not possible to conduct any sepa rate computer test. It is the stand of the respondents that the knowledge of com puter was assessed on the basis of the documents furnished during the interview and the answers furnished by candidates during interview on computer knowledge. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit-in-reply to challenge the aforesaid stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit. That apart, af ter the oral interview, he kept on waiting for more than one year till publicati on of the select list on 15.8.2010 and it was only thereafter, and that too when he found his name not included in the select list, approached this Court. It is in this context, in the counter affidavit has also urged the plea of estoppel. Apart from the above, the selected candidates are not before us being not party respondents and thus no adverse order can be passed by accepting the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing of the select list. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the wr it petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.