Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner-Atul B. Parmar is before this Court complaining that the Interview Committee of GPSC did not understand the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court [Coram: the Hon’ble Messrs Justices M.S. Shah and K.M. Mehta (they then were)] in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1390 of 2005 in Special Civil Application No. 9730 of 2000 with Special Civil Application No. 4461 of 2001 dated 31.08.2006. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was a specific direction issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the Interview Committee was under an obligation to follow the same in its true spirit. In this regard the learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Para 26 of the aforesaid judgment in LPA No. 1390 of 2005, which reads as under: “26. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. While rejecting the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants regarding the power of the Commission to prescribe the minimum qualifying standard at the viva-voce test and even while upholding the stand of the Commission that prescription of 35 out of 125 marks as the minimum qualifying standard for the viva-voce test for the open merit candidates and prescription of 27 out of 125 marks as the minimum qualifying standard for the viva-voce test for the Scheduled Caste candidates was not excessive or unreasonable, for the reasons already indicated hereinabove, we direct the Commission to hold again the viva-voce test in the three borderline cases - the two open merit candidates - Seat No. 60 (who had secured 471 marks at the written test and 32 marks at the viva-voce test), and appellant-Mr Vasant KR (open merit), and Scheduled Caste candidate Mr Atul Parmar for the posts of Dy. Executive Engineer Class-II within two months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court or a certified copy of this judgment, whichever is earlier. All that the Interview Committee will be required to consider at such viva-voce test would be to assess the suitability or otherwise of the abovenamed candidates for appointment to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer Class-II. All that the Interview Committee will be required to consider at such viva-voce test would be to assess the suitability or otherwise of the abovenamed candidates for appointment to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer Class-II. It would not be necessary for the Committee to assign any specific marks to the said candidates once they are found suitable at the viva-voce test because they had already obtained more aggregate marks than the last candidate in the select list for the post of Deputy Executive Engineer Class-II for the respective categories (as indicated in Paras 16 and 19 hereinabove). Those of the above-named three persons who are found to be suitable at the viva-voce test will be given appointment on the posts of Dy. Executive Engineer Class-II on the three vacancies which may be now available. However, such appointment will take effect from the date of appointment and they will not get any claim of seniority or pay fixation or increments for the intervening period. It is clarified that these directions do not require the Government to create any supernumerary post.” 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Interview committee ought to have appreciated the true meaning of the direction, viz. “All that the Interview Committee will be required to consider at such viva-voce test would be to assess the suitability or otherwise of the abovenamed candidates for appointment to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineer Class-II. .. ..” The Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to further direct that, “ .. .. It would not be necessary for the Committee to assign any specific marks to the said candidates once they are found suitable at the viva-voce test because they had already obtained more aggregate marks than the last candidate in the select list for the post of Deputy Executive Engineer Class-II for the respective categories (as indicated in Paras 16 and 19 hereinabove).” 4. Learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani invited attention of the Court to the real controversy involved in the earlier petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 9730 of 2000 and 4461 of 2001 and submitted that it was in light of that controversy that the Division Bench was pleased to observed in Para 25 as under: “25. Learned AGP Mr. Rashesh Rindani invited attention of the Court to the real controversy involved in the earlier petitions being Special Civil Applications No. 9730 of 2000 and 4461 of 2001 and submitted that it was in light of that controversy that the Division Bench was pleased to observed in Para 25 as under: “25. Even so, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection and appointment of the candidates already placed in the select list as all of them had obtained the minimum qualifying marks or more at the viva-voce test and they have already completed five years of service after appointment. Since we are not disturbing the selection and appointment of the candidates already made in the year 2000-2001, and since no subsequent competitive examination for Gujarat Engineering Services (Class-I and Class-II) has been held till today, we are of the view that the GPSC through its Interview Committee should be required to conduct the viva-voce test of the candidates in borderline cases again i.e. those who had obtained marginally less than the minimum qualifying marks at the viva-voce test. .. ..” 5. Despite strenuous efforts learned advocate Mr. Bhairavia could not convince this Court to accept that the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court should be construed to mean that the Interview Committee is supposed to hold interview merely as a formality and the petitioner should be declared to be qualified in second viva voce test. If that was so nothing precluded the Division Bench of this Court from so directing that the petitioner should be appointed. In fact, the Division Bench did leave it to the Interview Committee to assess suitability of the petitioner for being appointed to the post in question and therefore, it cannot be construed to mean that there was a direction from the Division Bench of this Court to complete ‘formality’ of holding viva voce test second time and declare the petitioner eligible for being appointed. In absence of any other material this Court finds that this petition is misconceived. Rule is discharged.