D.N. Chowdhury, J. — This appeal arises out of an order of the Commissioner of Hills and Barak Valley Division, Assam, Dispur cancelling the appointment of the appellant-writ petitioner as Head Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj vide office order No.Estt 2/88-89/65 dated 2.5.89. The said order of appointment dated 2.5.89 was in fact kept in abeyance vide Message No.Estt 2/84-85/79 dated 9.6.89. As alluded to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner admitted that the order of appointment dated 2.5.89 was not received by the appellant-writ petitioner. On consideration of facts the learned Single Judge held that since the order of appointment was not communicated to the appellant-writ petitioner, the respondents committed no error of law in cancelling the said order of appointment and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the writ appeal. 2. Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner strenuously argued that the impugned order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is unsustainable as being violative of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Lahiri faintly also argued that the learned Single Judge committed error of law in holding that the order of appointment was not issued by the authority concerned. Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate in his persuasive manner supported the appellate judgment as well as the impugned action of the respondents. 3. We have also perused the records from which the following facts surfaced. The post of Head Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj was to fall vacant with effect from 1.5.89 on the retirement of Mohit Mohan CJioudhury, Head Assistant. By a Memo No.KPE-30/86-88/109 dated 22.2.89 applications were invited for the said post and in response to the said advertisement four applications were received by the authority including the application of the appellant. All the four applications were found in order and accordingly the applicants were interviewed by the Selection Board on 31st March, 1989. From the minutes of the Selection Board, it appears that on examination of the ACRs and other service records as well as performance in the interview, the Selection Board found the respondent No.4 Parimal Kanti Deb as the most suitable candidate amongst all the candidates and accordingly recommended the Commissioner of Hills and Barak Valley Division, Assam, Dispur for appointment for the post of Head Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karinganj. Instead of appointing Parimal Kanti Deb whom the Selection Board found suitable, the Commissioner of Hills and Barak Valley Division, Assam respondent No.1 appointed the appellant-petitioner as Head Assistant with effect from 1.5.89. On receipt of the order dated 2.5.89 from the Commissioner of Hills, the Deputy Commissioner, Karinganj wrote back the Commissioner to reconsider the matter and accept the recommendation of the Selection Board. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj further requested the Commissioner-respondent No. 1 to kept in abeyance the implementation of the order No.Estt 2/88-89/65 dated 2.5.89 till disposal of the case. The relevant extracts of the letter dated 12th May, 1989 are appended below : "In acknowledging receipt of your Memo No.Estt 2/88-89/65 A dated 2.5.89 communicating the orders, appointing Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma, UD Assistant Development Branch as Sadar Head Assistant of this district, I have the honour to submit that the reasons as to why the recommendation of the Selection Committee was overruled were not recorded. Assessment of comparative merit and ability as per Rules The local administration understands the difficulty in the matter of selection of a suitable and fit person for such a key ministerial post of the district. And as such while scrutinising the documents, certificates, testimonials, furnished by the applicants along with the Service Records/CR, ACRs total length of service etc of each of the applicants, the Selection Board constituted with the Deputy Commissioner and 2 (two) Additional Deputy Commissioners had to be very careful so that the best available candidate is selected and recommended. As per note below Rule 6 of the Assam Ministerial District Estt Service Rules, 1967 (as amended) the appointment of Sadar Head Assistant will be made strictly on merit. Let us now compare the merit of Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma and Shri Parimal Kanti Deb, the candidate recommended by the Selection Board. Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma has been graded as 'Average' during three years, 1988, 1987 and 1986 by the two Deputy Commissioners. During the same period, the grading of the candidate recommended by the Selection Board is 'very good', 'good'. So, if merit is considered for appointment, Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma's merit is inferior to the recommended candidate. Let us now com pare the performance and conduct in respect of Shri Sarma and the recommended candidate by the Selection Board. In ACR of 1988, Shri RK Sarma has been recorded as 'habitua' late comer'. So, if merit is considered for appointment, Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma's merit is inferior to the recommended candidate. Let us now com pare the performance and conduct in respect of Shri Sarma and the recommended candidate by the Selection Board. In ACR of 1988, Shri RK Sarma has been recorded as 'habitua' late comer'. This is absolutely based on records. The Attendance Register for the year, 1988 will show that he is habitually late in attendance. While he is late in attendance but not late in leaving office, whether his work completed or not. In April, 1989 he was asked to explain for his late attendance because he was marked absent in Attendance Register for ten days in January, 1989 for twelve days in March, 1989. During the 1st week of April, 1989 he was absent/late for three days. He replied that his wrist watch was not in order. A copy of his reply is enclosed herewith for perusal. His reply shows that he neither repented for his late attendance, nor he assured improvement of his attendance. When the Govt. is continuously stressing for regular and punctual attendance in office, the promotion of Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma a habitual late comer, will set a damaging example to others and will positively impair the district establishment. In this respect, regarding performance Shri Sarma is also inferior to recommended candidate. Shri Sarma's attitude to work is casual. He is in habit of taking leave either on private ground or on medical ground. In 1986 he availed earned leave for 30 days on private ground, in 1987 he availed commuted leave for 92 days on medical ground, in 1988 he availed 61 days earned leave on private ground. The post of Head Assistant is a Supervisor one. Shri Sarma is considered to be incapable by the Selection Board to hold such post. While forming such opinion it was found on record that in 1978 Shri MN Baruah, ACS, then Sub Divisional Officer, Karimganj made a remark that Shri Sarma should not be assigned any important post as he made a completemess in a matter regarding celebration of Republic Day Festival. While forming such opinion it was found on record that in 1978 Shri MN Baruah, ACS, then Sub Divisional Officer, Karimganj made a remark that Shri Sarma should not be assigned any important post as he made a completemess in a matter regarding celebration of Republic Day Festival. Gradation : As per gradation list of Deputy Commissioner's amalgamated Establishment, Karimganj for the Upper Division Cadre as it stood on 1.7.83 approved by the Commissioner, Hills and Barak Valley Division, Assam under No. Estt 417 83-84/73 dated 16.5.88, the position of Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma is 31, whereas the position of the recommended candidate by the Selection Board is at serial 15. In fact the position of Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma in the UD Cadre as per approved gradation list referred to above is at the bottom (Last name of UD Cadre). At the moment there are as many as J 9 Upper Division Assistant Senior to him still in service. The total length of service of Shri RK Sarma is 26 years and the total length of service in respect of the recommended candidate is 33 years. From the column 8 of the gradation list as mentioned above (copy of relevant portion enclosed) it may appear that Shri RK Sarma has been encadred as UD Assistant on 3.2.70, whereas the recommended candidate has been shown encadred in the cadre of Upper Division Assistant on 1.8.67. It may further be said that the recommended candidate is senior in service and also in merit he is much superior to Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma. Under the circumstances stated above the merit and ability of the recommended candidate by the Selection Board is far superior to merit and ability of Shri Ranjit Kumar Sarma. If appointment is to be made on merit as per rule the recommendation of the Selection Board is to be accepted by the Commissioner. While rejecting the recommendation of the Selection Board, which was strictly made on merit, the Commissioner did not record any reason for rejection of the recommendation of the Selection Board. I would therefore request you to kindly reconsider the matter and, accept the recommendation of the Selection Board. While rejecting the recommendation of the Selection Board, which was strictly made on merit, the Commissioner did not record any reason for rejection of the recommendation of the Selection Board. I would therefore request you to kindly reconsider the matter and, accept the recommendation of the Selection Board. The implementation of the order communicated vide memo No. Estt 2/88-89/65A dated 2.5.89 may kindly be kept in abeyance till disposal of the case." From the record it also transpired that the order of the No. Estt 2/88-89/65 dated 2.5.89 which was kept in abeyance vide Commissioner's office Message No. Estt 2/84-89/79 dated 9.6.89. The Commissioner of examination of all aspects of the matter cancelled his order of appointment of the appellant-petitioner dated 2.5.89 and appointed Parimal Kanti Deb, UDC. The appointment to the post of Head Assistant is regulated by the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967. The said Rule 6 of the Rules envisaged that the said post is to be filled up by assessing the comparative of merit and ability of the candidates and the selection is to be made strictly on merit. In the case in hand the Selection Board unanimously recommended the name of respondent No.4 for appointment to die post of Head Assistant. The Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj forwarded the recommendation to the Selection Board together with the Character Rules and other relevant papers concerning the applicant to the Commissioner. The Selection Board graded respondent No.4 as No. 1. The relevant ACRs for 1986, 1987 and 1988 were also perused which also justified the decision of the Selection Board and accordingly the Commissioner finally on examining all pros and cons cancelled the earlier order of appointment of the appellant-petitioner. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 it was categorically asserted that the petitioner has never worked and functioned as Head Assistant. 5. On perusal of the records, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel of the appellant that there is any breach 6f the principles of natural justice. The finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order of appointment was not issued by the concerned authority cannot also be said to be perverse, which requires interference on appeal. 6. The finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the order of appointment was not issued by the concerned authority cannot also be said to be perverse, which requires interference on appeal. 6. On consideration of all materials on record we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. We are satisfied that there is no failure of justice which requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, there will be no costs.