By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Annexure-III select list for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh. Pursuant to the Annexure-I employment notice dated 17.1.2011 for 24 posts of Junior Assistant, the petitioners offered their candidatures along with others. It is on record that altogether 967 candidates appeared in the written examination. 2. In the advertisement, the qualification laid down was (1) HSSLC and (2) knowledge in type writing both in English and Assamese. Break up of reservation was also indicated in the employment notice. As regards the selection procedure, it was indicated that the written test would be comprised of General English, General Knowledge and General Mathematics with 100 marks in total. 3. In due course, candidates were directed to appear in the written examination held on 18.2.2011. The petitioners duly appeared. While 3 petitioners i.e. petitioners No. 1, 6 and 9 could qualify in the written examination, the remaining candidates could not qualify in the same. Those who qualified in the written examination were called for the interview. 4. The written examination was held on 18.2.2011 but as against the stipulation of 100 marks comprising of 3 (three) segments namely, General English, General Knowledge and General Mathematics, the same was of 300 marks and only pertaining to General English. The duration of the written examination was 2 (two) hours. 5. The results of the written examination were declared at 11.30 pm of the following day i.e. 19.2.2011. Immediately thereafter, the selected candidates in the ratio of 1:4 were called for the viva-voce and computer and typing test, held on 20.2.2011 and 21.2.2011. The final merit list was published on the following date i.e. 22.2.2011. Thereafter according to the respondents, the appointment orders had been issued to the selected candidates on 25.2.2011 and in respect of two candidates, the appointment orders were issued on 28.2.2011. However, the petitioners have disputed the same. According to them, the dates of appointment letters, namely, 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011, are all manipulated with the sole design of frustrating the interim order passed by this Court on 28.2.2011, by which it was provided that the merit list should not be given effect to. 6. However, the petitioners have disputed the same. According to them, the dates of appointment letters, namely, 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011, are all manipulated with the sole design of frustrating the interim order passed by this Court on 28.2.2011, by which it was provided that the merit list should not be given effect to. 6. The petitioners have questioned the very methodology and the procedure adopted in conducting the selection, which according to them was in high haste with the pre-determined aim to select the private respondents. It has also been contended that the employment notice having provided for the written test of 100 marks in the segment of General English, General Knowledge and General Mathematics, the candidates could not have been asked to appear in the written examination of 300 marks only in the segment of General English. It is the case of the petitioners that in case of any later decision to conduct the written examination for 300 marks only in the segment of General English, the same ought to have been notified enabling the candidates to prepare themselves according to the requirement. 7. I have heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel. I have also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the private respondents, who are the selected candidates. While Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued elaborately on the aforesaid issues, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel by producing the records has submitted that since the time schedule for holding the selection was notified before hand, no prejudice was caused to any one of the candidate including the petitioners. As regards the change of pattern of the written examination, he submits that while issuing the advertisement, a mistake was committed in not mentioning that the written examination would be of 300 marks in General English. In this connection, he has referred to the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967. 8. Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the selected candidates submits that all the candidates including the petitioners having appeared in the selection without any reservation, the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around so as to question the very selection. In this connection, he has referred to the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967. 8. Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the selected candidates submits that all the candidates including the petitioners having appeared in the selection without any reservation, the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around so as to question the very selection. He submits that because of the prescription of 300 marks in the written examination as against the earlier notified 100 marks, all the candidates had to face the same situation. However, he submits that there was no prejudice caused to any one of the candidates, more particularly, when the written examination was conducted in the segment of General English, which even otherwise also one of the segments of the written examination as per the employment notice. 9. A controversy has been raised in respect of the dates of issuance of the appointment orders pursuant to the impugned selection. As noted above, there was an interim order passed by this Court on 28.2.2011 with the direction not to given effect to the impugned select list dated 23.2.2011. However, it is the stand of the respondents that before the said order was passed on 28.2.2011, appointment orders were issued on 25.2.2011 followed by two further appointment orders issued on 28.2.2011. However, on receipt of the copy of the interim order dated 28.2.1011, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh passed an order on 22.7.2011 to the effect that the appointments of the private respondents would be subject to any order and direction of the Court, which might be passed in the writ petition. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by taking recourse to such an action, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, sat on appeal over the interim order passed by this Court. He submits that even if the plea of the Deputy Commissioner that the selected candidates were offered with the appointment orders on 25.2.2011 and 28.2.2011, is accepted, then also it was incumbent on his part to recall the said orders in deference to the interim order passed by this Court. He also submits that the said authority ought to have moved an application seeking clarification of the interim order but instead he took recourse to the said action of issuance of the order dated 26.7.2011 as if he is the appellate authority of this Court. 11. He also submits that the said authority ought to have moved an application seeking clarification of the interim order but instead he took recourse to the said action of issuance of the order dated 26.7.2011 as if he is the appellate authority of this Court. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire materials on record. As regards the plea of the petitioners that the selection was conducted with undue haste, the same will have to be tested in reference to the notice dated 11.2.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh. By the said notice, the schedule of the selection dates for the post of Junior Assistant was notified, indicating the dates of written test ; results thereof; dates, time and venue of viva-voce and type test and finally the date for publication of final select list. Thus, it was known to the petitioners that the selection would be conducted as per the programme notified by the aforesaid notice dated 11.2.2011 and they also participated in the selection accordingly. 12. During the course of hearing of this proceeding, when the officials of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, namely, Smt. Purabi Knowar, SDO(S) and Shri Ankur Bharali, Circle Officer, Dibrugarh were asked as to when the decision to conduct the written examination of 300 marks instead of earlier notified 100 marks was taken, it was submitted that such a decision was taken on 17.2.2011 i.e. just one day ahead of the written test held on 18.2.2011. The said two officials were directed to produce the records pertaining to the purported decision taken on 17.2.2011. However, by producing the records through Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel, it was submitted that although the decision was taken on 17.2.2011 but there is no order to that effect in writing. According to the respondents, the decision was taken orally and thereafter the same was reduced to writing on 22.2.2012. 13. According to the respondents, the aforesaid decision has to be taken in view of the aforesaid Service Rules which provides for holding of the written examination of 300 marks on General English (100 marks) ; Précis writing (100 marks) and drafting (100 marks). 13. According to the respondents, the aforesaid decision has to be taken in view of the aforesaid Service Rules which provides for holding of the written examination of 300 marks on General English (100 marks) ; Précis writing (100 marks) and drafting (100 marks). So far as the interview mark (100 marks) is concerned, the selection committee decided to divide the same into 50 marks for viva-voce and remaining 50 marks into 3 segments, namely, Assamese Typing (15 marks) ; English typing (15 marks) and computer typing (20 marks). 14. As noted above, out of the 9(nine) petitioners, 3 (three) were selected for the final segment of the selection, namely, interview comprising of the segments indicated above. They accordingly appeared but when they did not find their names in the final merit list, made a grievance against the same. Thereafter, they filed the instant writ petition along with 6 others, who were not even called for the viva-voce test as they did not qualify in the written examination. 15. On perusal of the records and as submitted by Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel, it appears that the candidates who were declared to have qualified in the written examination, applying the ratio of 1 : 4, were called for the final segment of the interview. Thereafter, the interview was conducted comprising of the above segments i.e. the viva-voce test and typing test, both in Assamese and English and also computer typing. It is on the basis of such a selection, candidates were selected. As per the decision of the selection Board, the candidates were selected on the basis of the total marks they have secured in all the segments. 16. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that it was incumbent on the part of the authority to notify the candidates in respect of change of pattern of the written examination. As notice above, the employment notice indicated that the written examination would be of 100 marks to be comprised of three segments, which are General English, General Knowledge and General Mathematics. However, it so happened that finally the written examination comprised of only General English and that too with the prescription of 300 marks. However, the fact of the matter is that as per the employment notice, General English was one of the segments of written examination. However, it so happened that finally the written examination comprised of only General English and that too with the prescription of 300 marks. However, the fact of the matter is that as per the employment notice, General English was one of the segments of written examination. Eventually, all the candidates participated in the written examination held on 18.2.2011 and as noted above, the petitioners also appeared in the written examination without any reservation. 17. Although, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no time to raise any objection to the manner and method of conducting the entire selection, but the fact of the matter is that they duly appeared in the written examination held on 18.2.2011 and 3 (three) of the petitioners who could qualify in the written test, also appeared in the interview. It was only thereafter and when they found that their names were not included in the select list, they filed the writ petition basically raising two issues, which are high haste in which the selection was conducted and secondly the written examination could not have been of 300 marks. 18. As regards the issue of high haste in conducting the selection, as noticed above, the same was duly notified by notice dated 11.2.2011. The selection was conducted as per the said schedule and the petitioners also participated in the selection as per the schedule. 19. As regard the doubt expressed by the petitioners that perhaps it was not possible on the part of the authority to evaluate the answer scripts immediately after conducting the written test on 18.2.2011, so as to publish the results thereof on 19.2.2011, the records have revealed that the written examination was over by 12’O Clock of 18.2.2011 and the answer scripts were evaluated and eventually results were declared at about 11.30 pm of the following day i.e. 19.2.2011. The records have further revealed that before the written examination was held on 18.2.2011, an office order dated 17.2.2011 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, nominating 7 (seven) officers to evaluate the answer scripts and for the purpose they were directed to report at Dibrugarh Circuit House on 18.2.2011 for evaluation of the answer scripts. Accordingly, the said officers gathered in the Circuit House and evaluated the same which enabled the authority to publish the results of the written examination on 19.2.2011 at 11.30 pm. 20. Accordingly, the said officers gathered in the Circuit House and evaluated the same which enabled the authority to publish the results of the written examination on 19.2.2011 at 11.30 pm. 20. As the schedule of the selection was already notified, the selected candidates were already informed of the date of publication of the results and accordingly they could collect the same which enabled them to appear in the interview conducted in the above manner on the following dates i.e. 20.2.2011 and 21.2.2011. 21. After the selection was conducted in the above manner, the final merit list was prepared upon compilation of the marks of all the segments. While doing so, the reservation policy was also followed and accordingly, the merit list was published. 22. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners on perusal of the records made a submission that knowledge of typing, both Assamese and English, being an essential qualification, the candidates who could not secure reasonable mark in Assamese typing could not have been selected. However, the fact of the matter is that the three petitioners who were selected in the written examination also could not secure the reasonable mark in Assamese typing. Moreover, it was within the competence and jurisdiction of the selection committee to fix the norms of selection. As noticed above, it was the decision of the selection committee that the candidates would be selected on the basis of the total marks secured in all the segments. I have verified the files produced and it is found that a comparative statement was prepared on the basis of marks secured by the candidates and on the basis of which the final merit list was prepared and in the process, reservation policy of the State was also followed. 23. As regards the allegation made in the writ petition that the selection was made in high haste with the sole purpose of accommodating the dearer and nearer ones of the respondents, I have verified the answer scripts of both the selected candidates and the petitioners. Upon a random assessment of the answers furnished, it cannot be said that the petitioners did very well to secure marks so as to find place in the merit list. 24. There are certain minor mistake / omission, which require mention at this stage. Upon a random assessment of the answers furnished, it cannot be said that the petitioners did very well to secure marks so as to find place in the merit list. 24. There are certain minor mistake / omission, which require mention at this stage. For drafting, there was 100 marks with a division of 50 marks for 2 (two) questions. Similarly, for précis writing, there was only one question comprising of 100 marks. There is also some force on the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners that the candidates secured ‘0’ marks or ‘½” marks in Assamese typing, could not have been selected. However, the said issues having not been raised in the writ petition, it will be beyond the scope and ambit of this proceeding, which is only confined to the aforesaid two issues of high haste in which the selection was conducted and conducting the written examination for 300 marks as against the earlier specified 100 marks. If the petitioners can cite any instance of an illegal selection on the basis of the information which they might receive through their sources, it will always be open for them to make independent challenge towards selection of private respondents with specific pleadings. 25. As noted above, the selection was conducted as per the notified schedule. It is also found that the written examination was conducted on the basis of the prescription made in the rules referred to above. It is true that the advertisement had notified that the written examination would be of 100 marks but the same was conducted for 300 marks. However, at the same time, it will have to be borne in mind that as per the earlier stipulation, one of the segments of the written examination (100 marks) was the General English, on which segment, the written examination for 300 marks was conducted. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners. This is coupled with the fact that the petitioners duly participated in the written examination and other segments of the selection and it is only after exclusion of their names from the merit list, they approached this Court. In between there was no reservation in respect of the procedure of selection expressed by the petitioners now. This is coupled with the fact that the petitioners duly participated in the written examination and other segments of the selection and it is only after exclusion of their names from the merit list, they approached this Court. In between there was no reservation in respect of the procedure of selection expressed by the petitioners now. As noted above, out of the 9 (nine) petitioners, 3 (three) petitioners had been called for the interview pursuant to their selection in the written examination and it was only after exclusion of their names form the final merit list, they raised the grievance in respect of the very procedure of selection. A doubt in respect of a selection, howsoever, may be strong but the same by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the selection was conducted illegally. 26. For all the aforesaid reasons and subject to the liberty granted to the petitioners, the impugned select list is not interfered with. The writ petition is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. 27. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel is permitted to take back the entire records. _____________