WA 317/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. DAS (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge allowin g the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 quashing selection of the appellant in the written test held on 07.02.2010 to the post of LDA-cum-Typist in the est ablishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Dhubri. A further direction has bee n issued to re-examine/reevaluate the answer- scripts of the writ petitioner-res pondent No.1 and for awarding marks for question No.4.3(f) of Section-A and Answ er No.7(i) of Section-B of Paper-I. In pursuance of advertisement dated 8.10.2009 the appellant-respondent No.1 and other candidates applied for the post of LDA-cum-Typist and appeared in the writ ten test on 7.2.2010. Since the petitioner was not selected and had a doubt abou t the fairness of the selection process, he took certain steps to verify the fac ts and found that one of her answers had not been evaluated which materially aff ected the result. She accordingly approached this Court by way of writ petition. The writ petition was opposed by the learned District Judge by stating that re- evaluation was done by calling the concerned evaluator and even after awarding o f marks, the writ petitioner failed to make it to viva voce. The relevant averme nts in the affidavit is as follows : The deponent states that upon receipt of such an application from the petitione r for re-evaluation/re-counting of the Paper I of the petitioner it was placed b efore the selection Board and Selection Board vide its resolution dated 10.11.2 010 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation as marks once awarde d could not be changed at the petitioner’s instance as same would amount to temp ering and considered the prayer for recounting. On recounting it was found the Q uestion No.7(I) of Section B of Paper I was left to be evaluated and accordingly the Selection Board resolved to call the concerned evaluator to award marks to the answer left to be corrected. The deponent further adds that concerned evalua tor awarded marks of the said answer applying his individual mind without any in terference from the Selection Board. The deponent denies that there were many changes in the total marks allotted in Paper I of the petitioner. Perusal of the paper will reveal that at first the pe titioner’s total marks was found to be 58. Thereafter on scrutiny, it was found that there was mistake in totaling, when actually the petitioner had obtained 63 marks. Accordingly the correct marks viz 63 marks secured had been entered in t he cover page of the answer script. In respect of decreasing of the marks to Que stion No.2(ii) of Section B in Paper I,this deponent has no comments to offer as the concerned evaluator has accorded marks to the said answer applying his own judicial mind without the interference and influence from the Selection Board or the deponent. The Selection Committee has no jurisdiction to enter into the dom ain of the evaluators. The deponent admits that even after awarding marks petitioner failed to make it to viva-voce. In respect of answer script to question Paper of Roll No.387, the deponent state s that mistake in counting was detected during scrutiny of the evaluated answer script whereupon it was found that mistakenly, awarded 110 ‰ marks rounded of to 111 which ought to have been only 100 marks. Hence the same was corrected. Learned Single Judge after referring to the averments that prayer for re-evaluat ion was rejected but without taking into account further averment that even afte r re-evaluation, the writ petitioner failed to make it to viva- voce, recorded a finding that the result was adversely affected. The finding recorded is as unde r : In my opinion, once it is admitted by the respondent No.2 proper marks were not fairly accurately awarded to the answer script of the petitioner in respect of Paper I, such mistake should not be allowed to remain. Had the petitioner been a warded marks in respect of her answer to Question No.7, the result of the examin ation viz-a-viz the private respondent could have been materially different to t he advantage of the petitioner. In my opinion, the refusal of the Selection Boar d to re-evaluate4 the answer script of the petitioner in the light of the afores aid glaring mistakes is arbitrary and suffers from the vice of non-application o f mind. The selection of the Respondent No.4 can not therefore, be sustainable i n law. The selection process in respect of respondent No.4, therefore, calls for the interference of this court. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and selection of respondent No.4 was quashed. Direction was also issued for re-evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner and for taking a decision after re-evaluation. We have heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf o f the appellant, and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant-original respondent No.4, submitted that learn ed Single Judge committed an error of record by not taking into account the aver ment in the counter affidavit that even after re-evaluation the writ petitioner did not make it to viva voce. He further submitted that selection of appellant a lone could not be set aside when many other candidates had appeared who were not impleaded as parties. He further submits that learned Single Judge did not call for the record to ascertain the facts. In any case, if direction has been issue d to re-examine/re-evaluate the answer script of the petitioner and a decision i s to be taken in the matter after re-evaluation, there was no occasion to quash the selection of the appellant. We find merit in the contention that the record ought to have been perused and i f the learned District & Sessions Judge has been directed to re-examine the matt er and take a fresh decision, further direction for quashing the selection of th e appellant before re-examination is not called for. We accordingly modify the impugned direction to the effect that the District & S essions Judge, Dhubri, may peruse the record and if some question in the answer script of the writ petitioner has not been evaluated, the same may be got evalua ted and consequential changes may be made in the result. The affected party may be given hearing by the learned District & Sessions Judge before taking final de cision in the matter.