Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam. 2. By way of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the selection process in any manner and to declare the final result of the viva voce as well as typing/computer test of candidates held on 16.6.2011 in respect of the lone post of Junior Assistant under the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur. 3. Case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam (respondent No.2) issued an advertisement, which was published in the newspaper "The Assam Tribune" on 17.12.2010, for filling up of 34 vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant in different Employment Exchanges under respondent No.2. It was notified that selection process would comprise of written test and typing/computer test for those who qualified in the written test. There would also be viva voce. 4. As per the said advertisement, there is one unreserved vacancy in the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur. Petitioner being eligible, applied for the said post. 5. Written test was held on 13.2.2011 at Industrial Training Institute, Tezpur. Petitioner was successful in the written test. He was informed vide call letter dated 3.6.2011 to appear before the Selection Committee headed by Deputy Director, Labour and Employment Department, Central Assam Zone-Cum-Chairman, Selection Committee (respondent No.4) for viva voce on 16.6.2011. 6. Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 16.6.2011. According to the petitioner, there was viva voce followed by typing/ computer test. As per petitioner's assessment, he performed satisfactorily in both. 7. After about 3 months, petitioner came across a notice issued by respondent No.2, which was published in the newspaper "The Assam Tribune" on 30.9.2011. As per the said notice, the results of the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant in the different Employment Exchanges were declared. However, it was notified that the result of one post of Junior Assistant in the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur along with two other posts in Tezpur and Dhemaji have been kept in abeyance. 8. As per the said notice, the results of the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant in the different Employment Exchanges were declared. However, it was notified that the result of one post of Junior Assistant in the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur along with two other posts in Tezpur and Dhemaji have been kept in abeyance. 8. According to the petitioner, he could gather that in response to an application filed by some candidates under the Right to Information Act, 2005, information was furnished by the State Public Information Officer that in case of District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur, result could not be declared due to non-completion of official process. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 10. Petitioner has contended that the lone vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant under the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur has not been filled up at the instance of the present incumbent holding the office of respondent No.2. He has interferred with the selection while the selection process was on as he wanted selection of a particular candidate. 11. This court by order dated 14.11.2011 directed the respondents not to take any viva voce/computer and typing test afresh for the post of Junior Assistant in District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur. 12. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that a written complaint was lodged by one candidate, namely, Shri Lakhi Hazarika who had appeared in the interview. Complainant alleged that he was given only one minute for the computer test which was wholly inadequate to test his skill. Respondent No.2 decided to examine the veracity of the complaint. Evaluation Sheets of the viva voce test of all the five members of the Selection Committee were called for and scrutinized. The scrutiny of viva voce test and computer test evaluation sheets revealed that petitioner has secured 10 marks out of 10 in computer test. In the viva voce also he has been allotted 10 marks out of 10 by all the five members of the Selection Committee. On the other hand, the other three candidates have secured only 1 or 2 marks out of 10 in both viva voce and computer test. Respondent No.2 then decided to look into the marks secured by all the four candidates in the written test. On the other hand, the other three candidates have secured only 1 or 2 marks out of 10 in both viva voce and computer test. Respondent No.2 then decided to look into the marks secured by all the four candidates in the written test. It revealed that the complainant had secured the highest marks in the written test, i.e., 82 as against 67.5 secured by the petitioner. In view of such glaring irregularity, it was decided to have a fresh computer test and viva voce of the said candidates in the presence of an observer of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur. The above decision has been taken to ensure fairness in the selection process. Accordingly, letter dated 29.10.2011 was issued to the respondent No.4 to re-conduct the computer/typing test of all candidates simultaneously in presence of an observer deputed by Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter to hold viva voce of the candidates. 13. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit. He has stated that by his intervention, respondent No.2 has cast doubt on the impartiality of the members of the Selection Committee. Respondent No.2 wants selection of a particular candidate and he has taken advantage of his position as Director. Respondent No. 2 cannot sit over the decision of the Selection Committee as an appellate or reviewing authority. Direction of respondent No.2 dated 29.10.2011 for holding the interview afresh is uncalled for and wholly unauthorized. 14. Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that when the selection process is not yet complete in the sense that recommendation is yet to be made, appointing authority cannot interfere with the process of selection conducted by the Selection Committee. If the same is allowed, it will completely erode the autonomy and authority of the Selection Committee. It will give unbridled power to the appointing authority to impose its decision on the Selection Committee. He submits that petitioner has performed well and therefore he has been given high marks by the members of the Selection Committee. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about this. He therefore seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the selection which has been illegally withheld. 15. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that respondent No.2 had to take the above decision in the larger public interest as otherwise the image of the Department would have suffered. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about this. He therefore seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the selection which has been illegally withheld. 15. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that respondent No.2 had to take the above decision in the larger public interest as otherwise the image of the Department would have suffered. When glaring irregularities were noticed, respondent No.2 could not have shut his eyes and allowed the seal of approval to such anomalies. 16. Submissions made have been considered. 17. Though the argument of Mr. Nath at the first blush appears attractive, a careful scrutiny of the documents placed on record would however reveal a disturbing picture, rendering his argument somewhat superfluous. 18. One Shri Lakhi Hazarika lodged a complaint dated 20.6.2011 before respondent No.2 stating that he was a candidate in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant in the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur and had appeared in the viva voce and skill test. He complained that the Selection Committee gave him only one minute to prove his skill in computer test. 19. On calling for the record, it transpired that out of the candidates who had appeared in the written test, four were selected for the interview. The marks obtained by the four selected candidates in the written test are as under : (1) Shri Lakhi Hazarika - 82 (2) ShriSousthavJyotiChangmai - 67.5 (3) Shri Budha Deep Phukan - 57 (4) Smt. Lakhimi Dutta - 57 20. In the computer/type test, the marks obtained by the above four candidates out of 10 are as under : (1) Shri Lakhi Hazarika - 02 (2) Shri Sousthav Jyoti Changmai - 10 (3) Shri Budha Deep Phukan" - 01 (4) Smt. Lakhimi Dutta - 01 21. In the viva voce, all the five members of the Selection Committee gave marks as under : 1. Shri Lakhi Hazarika 1 1 1 1 1 2. ShriSousthavJyotiChangmai 10 10 10 10 10 3. Shri Budha Deep Phukan 2 2 2 1 1 4. Smt. Lakhimi Dutta 1 1 1 2 2 22. The way marks have been allotted by the members of the Selection Committee as noticed above, it would naturally raise serious apprehension in the minds of the appointing authority about the fairness of the selection process. Shri Budha Deep Phukan 2 2 2 1 1 4. Smt. Lakhimi Dutta 1 1 1 2 2 22. The way marks have been allotted by the members of the Selection Committee as noticed above, it would naturally raise serious apprehension in the minds of the appointing authority about the fairness of the selection process. In such circumstances, the appointing authority, i.e., respondent No.2 issued direction dated 29.10.2011 to the respondent No.4 to re-conduct the computer/typing test of all the four candidates simultaneously in presence of an observer deputed by Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter to hold viva voce. 23. In the circumstances as noticed above, this court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the appointing authority is a reasonable view. Intervention by the respondent No.2 appears to be justified. Public trust and confidence in the fairness and impartiality of selection is the essence of the selection process for recruitment to public employment. In such matters, public perception of the fairness and impartiality in the selection process is crucial. Therefore, decision of respondent No.2 appears to be in consonance with such objective. 24. No case for interference is made out. Respondent No.4 shall now re-conduct the computer/typing test of all the four candidates simultaneously in presence of an observer deputed from the office of Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter hold viva voce of the said candidates. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of 8 weeks from today. 25. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is dismissed. 26. However, there shall be no order as to cost. _______________