WP(C) 3424/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA None appears for the petitioner, when the matter is called upon.Heard Ms. D. Bor a, learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department. 2. By the earlier order dated 14.11.2017, it was recorded that none appeare d for the petitioner, when the matter was called upon. But however, as the case of the petitioner is for a direction to appoint him as Multi Purpose Worker (Mal e) under the Directorate of Health Service, Assam and by considering the submiss ion of the learned Standing Counsel, Health Department that the petitioner did n ot qualify in the oral interview held for the purpose, the respondent Health Dep artment was asked to file an affidavit stating the same. Accordingly, an affidav it dated 22.11.2017 has been filed. It is noticed that a copy of the said affida vit was also served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has received the same by making an endorsement in the accompanying notice. Accordingly, it is also noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner was duly informed that the matter is being taken up and further that it will also be again called on 2 3.11.2017. In spite of the same, as none appears for the petitioner today, it is deemed appropriate that the matter be proceeded in the absence of the learned c ounsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner who claims that he belongs to the Maimal Community had pa rticipated pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Director of Health Service s, Assam dated 27.02.2009 for amongst others, 1000 posts of Multi Purpose Worker (Male). 4. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to appear in a written test which was held on 05.07.2009. The written test consisted of 100 marks with 100 multipl e choice questions, where one mark was allotted for each question. The petitione r states that his performance in the written test was good and accordingly, by a letter dated 21.11.2009 he was asked to appear in the viva voce test, which was held on 21.12.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the viva voce test. According to the petitioner, his performance in the interview/viva voce test wa s good and therefore, he ought to have been offered an appointment. 5. On the aforesaid premises, this writ petition has been preferred for a d irection to the respondent authorities to declare that the petitioner has qualif ied in the selection process and to include his name in the merit list/recommend ed list and also for a further direction to appoint him as a Multi Purpose Worke r (Male) under the Directorate of Health Service, Assam. 6. In the affidavit dated 22.11.2017, a specific statement has been made th at although the petitioner was successful in the written test and therefore, he was called to appear in the viva voce/interview, but in the interview, which was conducted by the selection board, the petitioner had failed to qualify. No mate rial has been produced by the petitioner to controvert the same. As it is the st and of the respondent that the petitioner did not qualify in the interview/viva voce, therefore, no subsisting legal right could be found in favour of the petit ioner for a direction to include his name in the merit or for a direction to app oint him. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.