WP(C) 5832/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. The petitioner who was an aspirant for a Grade-IV post in Hailak andi district under Social Welfare Department, for which selection was conducted in the year 2005-06 has filed this writ petition for his appointment upon setti ng aside of the appointments of the respondents No. 6 and 7. Referring to the ca ll letter for the interview annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-III dated 2 5.1.2005, it is the stand of the petitioner that his Roll Number was 111 and the said Roll Number having been included in the select list at serial No. 1, the p etitioner should have been appointed instead of appointing the private responden ts. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit with the deni al that the petitioner was allotted the Roll No. 111, it is the stand of the res pondents that the petitioner was allotted Roll No. 110 and that Roll No. 111 was allotted to the respondent No. 7. In this connection they have referred to the original statement showing the list of selected candidates, in which the name of the respondent No. 7 appears with Roll No. 111 and that of the petitioner with Roll No. 110. The number of vacancies, for which selection was conducted, was tw o. In the merit list, Roll Number of the petitioner was included at serial No. 3 and thus did not come within the zone of consideration. Although, Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits t hat in view of the above contradiction relating to the Roll Number of the petiti oner, records of the selection are required to be called for, but when the petit ioner himself has failed to indicate anything that his Roll Number was 111, the said course of action, in my considered opinion is not required to be adopted. The only document on which the petitioner has placed reliance in the writ petition is the call letter dated 25.1.2005, in which the figure ’111’ is found inserted by hand. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner an other document (Annexure-B) has been annexed to claim that his Roll Number was 1 11. In the said document also the endorsement Roll No. 111 is handwritten. On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavit wh ile denying that the Roll Number allotted to the petitioner was 111 has enclosed the certified true copy of the original statement showing the list of selected candidates, in which the name of the respondent No. 7 appears under Roll No. 111 and that of the petitioner under Roll No. 110. Above being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner was allotted Roll No. 111 and when the certified true copy of the original docum ent clearly reflects his Roll No. as 110. There is no question of acceptance of the petitioner’s Roll No. 111 on the basis of the aforesaid handwritten endorsem ent. In view of the no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accor dingly, writ petition is dismissed.