JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. S.P. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Government Advocate, Assam. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.5890 of 2009 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 2.8.2013 passed by the Single Judge in the abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and declined to grant him any relief. So the question which arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? The appellant pursuant to one advertisement issued by the State (forest department) had applied for the post of forest guard. He appeared in the written examination, physical test and interview but to his misfortune was not selected and hence feeling aggrieved filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. He challenged the very selection process system, its mode and manner of giving marking in the interview etc. The learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the challenge and hence dismissed the writ petition giving rise to filing of this writ appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal and, hence, it deserves dismissal in limini. We have perused the impugned order of the learned single judge. It is quite reasoned one and deals with all the issues raised by the petitioner. In the first place, when the appellant submitted to the selection process then in such event, had no right to raise any grievance against the selection process. Secondly, the challenge on the plea of malafides was rightly repelled for the simple reason that there was no factual foundation laid for such plea in the petition and nor the person concern against whom the allegations were leveled was impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. In the absence of any factual foundation being laid in the writ petition coupled with the fact that the person concern was not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition, a plea of malafide was not sustainable and was, therefore, rightly repelled. In the absence of any factual foundation being laid in the writ petition coupled with the fact that the person concern was not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition, a plea of malafide was not sustainable and was, therefore, rightly repelled. Thirdly, whether the marks allotted to the interview were more having regard to the nature of post was a matter for the departmental authorities to decide and the appellant having subjected to the interview along with every candidate at par had no right to turn around and raise a plea subsequently contending that there was some flaw in the marking system and lastly, no case of arbitrariness per se could be pointed out by the appellant in the impugned selection process so as to call for any interference in the impugned order. Since the issue was examined in detail by the writ court with reference to the factual aspects of the case of the appellant, hence, we concur with this reasoning and the conclusion. In the light of forgoing discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limini. No cost.