Amitava Roy, J.:- The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 rendered in WP (C) No. 2906/2008 setting aside his appoint­ment to the post of Lower Division Assistant (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'LDA') in the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, North Lakhimpur. The annulment was as a consequence of a challenge to the selection process by the respond­ent No. 7 herein. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No. 7 in the writ proceeding. 2. We have heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. B. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Assam; Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State counsel and Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 3. The process of filling up the aforemen­tioned post was initiated pursuant to the Of­fice Order bearing Memo No. A/10(C)/05-06/621-26 dated 27.2.2008 of the Execu­tive Engineer, North Lakhimpur Water Re­source Division, North Lakhimpur. A four member Selection Committee was also con­stituted thereby to administer the selection which was to be on the basis of a written test, viva-voce and typewriting test. The post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (P) candi­dates only. In this connection, the Executive Engineer, North Lkhirnrnr Water Resource Division, North Lakhimpur as the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee re­quested the District Employment Officer, Lakhimpur to send the names and particulars of 20 candidates for the post. On receipt of the list of such candidates as requested, call letters were issued to them including the par­ties in the fray fixing 18.5.2008 for written test etc. The call letter inter alia mentioned that the written test would comprise of Gen­eral English, General Knowledge and Math­ematics for 50 marks with the duration of 1½ hours. The written test was to be followed by interview and typewriting test. 4. In course of the written test it transpired that the same was for 100 marks instead of 50 marks as indicated in the call letter. How­ever, on the completion of the written test, on the very same day, viva-voce as well as typewriting test was held. The results of the selection were also announced on the same day and the appellant was shown to have been selected for appointment. 5. How­ever, on the completion of the written test, on the very same day, viva-voce as well as typewriting test was held. The results of the selection were also announced on the same day and the appellant was shown to have been selected for appointment. 5. Situated thus, the respondent No.7 in the above factual backdrop initiated the writ proceeding assailing the selection process and the resultant appointment of the appellant in­ter alia on the ground that the same had been conducted in violation of the prescribed guidelines and was in reality a sham exercise in order to favour the appellant on extraneous considerations. That the written test was held for 100 marks instead of 50 marks and that the model of the question paper demon­strated total non-application of mind for se­curing the appointment of the appellant herein was also underlined. 6. This Court while issuing notice by the order dated 28.5.2008, in the interim, ob­served that any appointment on the basis of the impugned selection would be subject to further orders. Contending that in view of the above observation, he though appointed meanwhile tentatively, the same had not been regularized, the appellant filed an application seeking modification and/or vacation of the order dated 28.5.2008. In the said interim application registered as M.C. No. 34937 2008, the appellant pleaded the validity of the selection process and urged that as on a com­parative assessment of the performance of the participating candidates he had been ap­pointed having been adjudged to be the best, no interference as sought for therewith was warranted. 7. The respondent No.5 in the writ pro­ceeding i.e. the Executive Engineer, North Lakhimpur Water Resource Division, North Lakhimpur in his counter did not dispute that in terms of the decision taken by the Selec­tion Committee the written test was to be held for 50 marks with a duration of 1½ hours. The answering respondent stated that as per the decision of the Seection Committee the question paper was drawn up by Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur as the rep­resentative of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and that she on the date of the test arrived at the examination hail with the ques­tion papers and distributed the same to the candidates herself. The answering respondent stated that as per the decision of the Seection Committee the question paper was drawn up by Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur as the rep­resentative of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and that she on the date of the test arrived at the examination hail with the ques­tion papers and distributed the same to the candidates herself. The deponent futher averred that the members of the Committee were not aware that the question paper was set for 100 marks as this disclosure had not been made to them at any earlier point of time. The answering respondent, however, pleaded that the test was held without any hassle and that on an overall assessment of the perform­ance of the candidates, 10 in number, the writ petitioner (respondent No.7 herein) was placed at serial No. 3. That the present appellant had topped the panel of the three can­didates selected by the Committee was not disputed by the answering respondent. 8. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings available, the official records laid on behalf of the Department as well as the arguments advanced, interfered with the impugned selection process and the appoint­ment of the appellant and directed that a fresh selection process be conducted in accord­ance with law to fill up the post. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Single Judge took note of the letter dated 8.5.2008 of the Departmental Minister as available in the official records whereby the appointment of the ap­pellant to the post had been recommended. He was also of the view that the manner in which the question paper for the written test was prepared indicated non- application of mind and absence of a bonafide attempt to evaluate the relative merit of the candidates. The participation of Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur in the selection process, though not a member of the Selec­tion Committee and her failure to file any coun­ter in the writ proceeding also weighed with the learned Single Judge in concluding that the selection process was not fair or trans­parent. 9. Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur though had been impleaded in the writ proceeding as respondent No.8, did not file her pleadings separately. She, however, has done so in the instant appeal. Therein she has asserted ignorance of any letter allegedly written by the departmental Minister recom­mending appointment of the appellant to the post involved. 9. Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur though had been impleaded in the writ proceeding as respondent No.8, did not file her pleadings separately. She, however, has done so in the instant appeal. Therein she has asserted ignorance of any letter allegedly written by the departmental Minister recom­mending appointment of the appellant to the post involved. She has reiterated that the ap­pellant on the basis of his performance in the written test, viva voce and typewriting test had been adjudged to be the best amongst the competing candidates and was, thus, placed at serial No. 1. 10. Mr. Saikia has emphatically argued that the appellant having been selected solely on the basis of his superior performance in the Selection process, interference therewith has been parently illegal. According to him, the selection process was not informed by any extraneous consideration and that the letter of the departmental Minister stated to be avail­able in the official records is a forged docu­ment. This plea is substantiated by want of response of the departmental Minister arrayed as respondent No.9 in the instant appeal to the process of this Court, he maintained. As admittedly the appellant had been adjudged to be the best amongst the participating can­didates and the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 had not claimed to have faired better than him, the learned Single Judge had fallen in error in nullifying the selection process and his (appellant) appointment, he urged. To re­inforce his argument, Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in The Chancellor & Anr. Vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Ors., (1994)1 SCC169 and of this Court in Mandira Das Sarma Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2011) 1 NEJ 72. 11. Mr Goswami, learned Standing Coun­sel, Water Resources Department on being queried by this Court, however, has affirmed the existence of a letter dated 8.5.2008 of the Departmental Minister recommending appointment of the appellant to the post involved. 12. Mr. Deka appearing for the respond­ent No.8, Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur, however, has reiterated her stand a noticed hereinabove. 13. Mr. Bhuyan for the respondent No.7 has insistently argued that as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the selection proc­ess is afflicted by unwarranted intervention of the departmental Minister rallying behind the appellant for his appointment. This, Mr. Bhuyan has maintained, is apparent from the letter dated 8.5.2008 which is a part of the official records. 13. Mr. Bhuyan for the respondent No.7 has insistently argued that as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the selection proc­ess is afflicted by unwarranted intervention of the departmental Minister rallying behind the appellant for his appointment. This, Mr. Bhuyan has maintained, is apparent from the letter dated 8.5.2008 which is a part of the official records. Without prejudice to this, the learned counsel has further argued that as is evident on the face of the records, the written test was held for 100 marks in departure from the decision taken by the Selection Commit­tee to conduct it for 50 marks. Moreover, the pattern and contents of the question pa­pers made it wholly impracticable to be an­swered within 1½ hours as was originally scheduled for a test of 50 marks. The over-zealous role of the respondent No.8, Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur in preparing the question paper for 100 marks without any authority by keeping the members of the Selection Committee uninformed thereof and of distributing the same by her­self obviously demonstrates impertinent con­siderations in favour of the appellant to se­cure his appointment by all means, he urged. As the learned Single Judge has rendered his decision on a due consideration of all relevant aspects having a bearing on the issue raised, Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that no interfer­ence with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 14. The pleaded facts and the rival con­tentions based thereon have been duly taken note of. The sequence of events pertaining to the selection since after the constitution of the Selection Committee on 27.2.2008 is not in dispute. That the written test, a component of the selection process, was to be of 50 marks with duration of 1½ hours as decided by the Selection Committee is a matter of record. It is undisputed that eventually the written examination was conducted for 100 marks on the basis of the question paper drawn by Ms. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur claiming to be the repre­sentative of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. Admittedly, however, she was not a member of the Selection Committee. The norm prescribed by the Selection Committee that the written test would be held for 50 marks with a duration of 1½ hours could be departed from only by it and none else. Binapani Deuri, SDO(C), North Lakhimpur claiming to be the repre­sentative of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. Admittedly, however, she was not a member of the Selection Committee. The norm prescribed by the Selection Committee that the written test would be held for 50 marks with a duration of 1½ hours could be departed from only by it and none else. The SDO(C), North Lakhimpur of her own drew up a question paper for the said test for 100 marks, however, retaining the time therefore. It is not the case of the official respondents that this deviation was either with the knowl­edge of the Selection Committee or ratified thereafter by it. 15. It is apparent from the affidavit-in-op-position of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, North Lakhimpur that this digression was not approved by the Selection Committee and, as a matter of fact, was not known to it. In our view, the SDO(C), North Lakhimpur had no authority to modify the norm in this regard otherwise stipulated by the Selection Committee. The feet that the par­ticipating candidates did not abandon the test raising objection thereto cannot cure this vice. 16. There is no denial of the fact that a letter dated 8.5.2008 of the Minister, Parliamentary Affairs and Water Resource Depart­ment, Assam had been received by the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, North Lakhimpur recommending appointment of the appellant to the post in­volved. In the said letter not only his serial number was indicated, a request was also made to the effect that he be appointed as a special case. None of the official respond­ents in their affidavits has denied either the receipt of this letter or the existence thereof. The endorsement on the body of the letter indicates that the same was received by the office of the Executive Engineer, Water Re­source Division, North Lakhimpur on 9.5.2008. Noticeably, this was before the written test, typewriting test and viva-voce held on 18.5.2008. That all the segments of the selection had been traversed and the re­sults thereof were declared on the same day also cannot go unnoticed. 17. The appellant's plea that this letter is a forged document is too far fetched to generate persuasion. There is no material on record to even infer that this letter had been planted subsequently to mar the appellant's prospects in the selectioa Such an inference would thus, be highly speculative and illogical. 17. The appellant's plea that this letter is a forged document is too far fetched to generate persuasion. There is no material on record to even infer that this letter had been planted subsequently to mar the appellant's prospects in the selectioa Such an inference would thus, be highly speculative and illogical. The impact of this letter, having regard to its author and the date of receipt thereof, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be ignored. In the above factual premise, the placement of the appellant at the top of the list of the competing candidates is not of any determi­native significance. 18. The decision of the Apex Court in the Chancellor & Anr. Vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Ors. (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. Therein after the completion of the selection process for appointment to the post of Professor of Philosophy hi Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, three members of the Selection Committee had addressed two letters to the Vice Chancellor of the Univer­sity conveying that the selected candidate did not possess the requisite qualification The selected candidate was still appointed. The respondent No. 1 unsuccessfully made a rep­resentation before the Chancellor of the Uni­versity without, however, mentioning about the two letters and, thereafter, instituted a writ petition challenging the appointment of the selected candidate. In the writ petition also the respondent omitted to mention about the two letters addressed by the three members of the Selection Committee to the Vice Chancellor. These letters, however, were produced in course of the arguments. Eventually, the selection was set aside. The Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with this determination no­ticing inter alia the fact that the respondent had not mentioned about these two letters in his representation before the Vice Chancel­lor of the University as well as in his writ pe­tition. The same analogy, in our view, cannot be drawn to the facts of the present case. 19. It is unlikely that the writ petitioner/respondent No.7 was aware of the letter of the departmental Minister at all relevant times and particularly at the time of institution of the writ petition. His omission to mention about the same in his pleadings at that point of time, thus, cannot non-suit him on this ground. The decision of this Court in Mandira Das Sarma (supra) is also of no avail to the appellant. His omission to mention about the same in his pleadings at that point of time, thus, cannot non-suit him on this ground. The decision of this Court in Mandira Das Sarma (supra) is also of no avail to the appellant. It is no longer res integra that a candidate par­ticipating in a selection process is not debarred thereafter to question the validity thereof if the same suffers from apparent illegalities render­ing it non-est. The plea of estoppel against the writ petitioner/respondent No.7, thus, does not appeal to us. 20. The views recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the disclosures from the records and are by no means im­plausible and cannot be repudiated as un­founded. In the exercise of our writ appellate jurisdiction, we find no good and convincing reason to interfere therewith. 21. The appeal lacks in merit and is dis­missed. No costs.