WP(C) 5145/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr PK Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr M Khata niar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Govt. of Assam. The petitioner, a contender for the post of Additional Teacher in Englis h on contractual basis in Kamargaon H.S. School, Barpeta is before this Court qu estioning the validity of the selection of the respondent No.5 thereto. Accordin g to her, in response to the notification dated 10.6.2010 initiating a process i n that regard, she along with others including the respondent No.5 offered their candidature. She participated in the interview before the selection board, wher eafter, a select list was published in which the respondent No.5 was shown to ha ve topped the same. After exhausting her steps with the authorities including un der the RTI Act, 2005, she is before this Court with the contention that the afo rementioned respondent has been wrongly selected in deviation of the stipulation s contained in the aforementioned notification dated 10.6.2010. Mr Talukdar has urged that though the respondent No.5 is not possessed o f a B.Ed degree while the petitioner is so, the latter ought to have been prefer red for the post. He has further submitted that as on the basis of academic achi evements the petitioner was ahead of the respondent No.5, there is no conceivabl e reason as to why the latter was preferred as the first nominee. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has argued tha t there being nothing tangible or substantial to challenge the validity of the p rocess, the same ought not to be entertained. At the first place, the notification dated 10.6.2001 does not describe B .Ed to be an essential condition of eligibility. It only underlines that the can didates having Major/ Postgraduate Degree in the relevant subject with B.Ed. or M.Ed will be entitled to preference. The comparative chart prepared by the sele ction committee indicates that while the petitioner had been awarded 30 marks fo r her B.Ed, the respondent No.5 being bereft of the same was denied the said mar ks. The said chart, however, reveals that in the interview by the selection boar d which was composed of four members on an aggregate the respondent No.5 was awa rded 50 marks whereas the petitioner secured only 20 marks. The grand total of t hese two candidates eventually stood at 212.02 (petitioner) and 245.6 (responden t No.5). There is, thus, an apparent margin of 33 marks approximately between th e petitioner and the respondent No.5. Neither the writ petition contains any all egation of awarding of excess marks to the respondent No.5 on a collateral consi deration, nor has such a plea been raised before this Court. In view of the above, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction do es not consider it to be a fit case for any interference. The writ petition lacks in merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.