`-i, i Serial bate Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of lot action (if any) Order Order taken on Order I I9. 20.5.IIII1(i 8 Present: Mr. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.G. Sherpa, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr.S.P.Wangdi, Advocate General with Mr. J.B. FTadhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, Govt. Advocates for the State-Respondents.Thewritpetitionitselfandthe addition of party application are taken up together. The only wit petitioner whose case is still survives is writ petitioner No. 4 i.e. Ram Narayan Sharma. He was a prospective candidate for appointment as PGT Biology Teacher.Themeritpanelwhichwasprepared in the instant matter is given at page 60 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State and the said petitioner is placed there at position No. 8. It appears .that the merit panel was not allowed on the basis of a Court order to expire within one year as was originally the scheme, but that I I(I III it expired later on, in or about the month of January, 2007. Before that two pel`sons had been appointed, one was from the panel who was placed at No. 1 and another was an in-service candidate and he was also at the top of the prospective promotees.Noobjectioncanberaised to these events. 'rJ . a -cl lo6 \ SerialNo.of Dateof Order with Signature Office Note as to Order I Order action (if any)takenonOrder \ \ \ I I I I \ \ \, \1\,,\ I\ \ justice, 3 weeks' time is granted to the State rfu5 a h®`rfu|aA¢f_,+`(404'04®A=", b` Respondents so as to enable them to file Counter Affldavit within 3 weeks and, it is mere clear that the Petitioner No. 4 is atlibertytofileRejoinder,ifsc,advised.The matter be listed on 4.6.2007 for necessary 1111,II S|.`ty} L~ GS ) rq ~ mfcc9 orders. ( A.N. Ray, CIJ)(N"S.1ngh`,,i 42d~. CJ-;-+ \-L^ 4` 1\I \ I\,I I\1,I rty 1 ` ®fr J^)- 7,-`#ocO#jJL'::i:i-----i:--ff_-i I\\\ ) ) I\ \ III\\I I\', I I \ z¢±£##ii: / I,-\ I ---`' E, , Serial ibate Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Border I , Order __ __ __-_-__-_--__-__-_-_ -_=----==----:---,i-I------ _±-;takeitron=Order=±:==== `1,a What happened thereafter was that from the panel commencing from March 2007, Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were also appointed.Althoughmaliyarguments have been advanced and the re].oinder of the writ petitioner has been placed more in detail than the writ petition itself, in spite of our best efforts, we __ have been unable to understand how the writ petitioner can have any grievance as against the appointments or how he can ultimately place hinself higher than the persons who had done better than him in the examination in question. The addition appHcation is for adding the said merit list candidates 2, 3 and 4 as respondents to the writ petition.Weareofthe opinion that these private persons should not be dragged into litigation whici is of the present nature and which discloses nothing unreasonable nor any injustice, at least so far as petitioner N,o. 4 merit list candidate No. 8 is concerned. Both the applications are dismissed without any order as to costs. 7- (A. Ray,CJ)(A..Subba,J)