WP(C) 1188/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. I hav e also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate along wit h Ms. K. Devi, learned State Counsel. The two petitioners are the aspirants for Grade-IV posts in the amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. They have filed this w rit petition for setting aside and quashing the select list dated 27.2.2009 and consequential appointment orders issued in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 14 . An advertisement was issued on 25.6.2008 for filling up 24 vacan cies of Grade-IV posts. The selection was conducted on 21.2.2009 and 22.2.2009, in which the petitioners along with the private respondents and others appeared. It is the stand of the petitioners that they being better qualified (Higher Sec ondary passed) and the private respondents being under matriculate, the authorit y ought to have preferred the petitioners in the matter of selection over the pr ivate respondents. It has also been stated that some over aged candidates had be en allowed to participate in the selection. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compilation sheet e nclosed in the said affidavit would go to show that the private respondents have been awarded higher marks than the petitioners without taking into account the respective educational qualification. He further submits that as against the tot al allotted marks to the member of the Selection Committee which was 15, atleast in one case, the particular member awarded 15.5 marks. He has also referred to the school certificate annexed to the reply affidavit, which pertains to the res pondent No. 6 to show that he was a school student at a much higher age. Above are the general grounds on which the writ petition is stru ctured towards challenging the selection and appointment of the private responde nts. As regards the allocation of marks by the members of the Selection Committe e, in absence of any allegation of malafide exercise of power and violation of a ny statutory rules, merely because the petitioners are Higher Secondary passed, it cannot be said that they had excelled in the selection over the private respo ndents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been s tated that total 50 marks was earmarked for interview. Out of which 15 marks was for writing capacity, 18 marks for reading capacity and the balance 17 marks fo r personality test. Applying the said yardsticks and parameters, the Selection C ommittee conducted the selection and as per the compilation sheet enclosed in th e counter affidavit, the private respondents secured better marks than the petit ioners and consequently they got selected in order of merit. As regards the allegation of awarding 15.5 against 15 allotted m arks, nothing could be brought on record to show that the member of the Selectio n Committee was allotted only 15 marks. As indicated in the counter affidavit, 1 7 marks were earmarked for evaluating personality test and if that be so, there was nothing wrong in awarding 15.5 marks to the particular candidate. As regards the school certificate in respect of the respondent N o. 6, merely because he was admitted to the school at an advanced age, same by i tself cannot be lead to the inference that he was not a student of the said scho ol and/or the certificate is a manipulated one. This Court exercising the writ j urisdiction cannot make a roving enquiry to enter into such disputed questions o f fact. Moreover, the said certificate is an addition to the plea taken in the w rit petition in the form of an affidavit-in-reply. Needless to say that in the matter of selection, the Writ Court will be reluctant to sit on appeal over the particular exercise carried out by t he expert body i.e. Selection Committee. That apart, on the basis of the materia ls placed on record, I do not find any infirmity with the selection process. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the wr it petition and accordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.