WP(C) 2549/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also heard Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.9. The petitioner, who was a member of the selection committee for selectio n of Anganwadi Workers for the Jaleswar ICDS Project in the district of Goalpara , has filed this writ petition challenging the selection on the ground that the Respondent No.9, although did not participate in the selection process but late r on, awarded marks and the same was incorporated in the statements of marks awa rded to the candidates. Be it stated here that the petitioner as well as the Re spondent No.9, who were the members of the selection committee as social workers , the interview for the selection for the post was conducted on 29.9.2009, 30.9. 2009 and 1.10.2009. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid plea of the pet itioner has been denied. It has been stated that the allegation made by the peti tioner is baseless, fabulous and fictitious inasmuch as the petitioner himself r emained absent in the interview on 30.9.2009 and 1.10.2009. In this connection, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department has produced the concerned register containing the proceedings of the selection. In the proceedi ngs pertaining to 30.9.2009 and 1.10.2009, although the name of the petitioner a ppears as member of the selection committee but unlike the others, against the s aid name, no signature appears. The members present in the selection duly signed the proceeding book except the petitioner. It is in this respect, the responden ts in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner remained absent in the interview conducted on 30.9.2009 and 1.10.2009. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, in which he has simply denied the st and of the respondents that he was absent on 30.9.2009 and 1.10.2009. According to him, he was very much present in the interview. However, the records revealed otherwise and the Court will have to believe the said records instead of the st atements made in the affidavit. The petitioner has tried to bring contradiction to the stand of the respondents by referring to the statements made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter affidav it. According to the petitioner, the fact that the Respondent No.9 was absent i n the interview is born out from the fact that during the forenoon on 30.9.2009, the Respondent No.9 was present in the interview conducted in another ICDS proj ect. The affidavit also speaks of the fact that due to heavy rain, no interview could be conducted for the Jaleswar I.C.D.S. Project before 11.45 A.M. Thus, i t is the stand of the respondents that since the interview was conducted belated ly i.e. after 11.45 AM, the Respondent No.9 could participate in the interview. The petitioner before making any grievance alleging non-participation of the Res pondent No.9 in the interview and thereafter, awarding marks to the candidates w ill have to establish that he himself participated in the selection. The specifi c stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that he was absent on 3 0.9.2009 and 1.10.2009 is born out from the records i.e. the concerned register produced by the learned Standing Counsel, which contains the minutes of the sele ction conducted from 2.9.2009 to 8.10.2009. For all the aforesaid reasons and on the plea, on which the writ petition is str uctured, the same cannot be accepted. Consequently, the writ petition is dismis sed. The interim order passed on 5.5.2010 stands vacated.