JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Ms. A. Devi, learned counsel representing the petitioner as the Legal Aid Counsel, as well as Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. Having regard to the facts in issue, service of Notice upon the private respondents is not deemed necessary and the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the petitioner, she had applied for the post of Peon (Grade-IV) under the establishment of the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operation Societies, Karimganj. She had successfully qualified in the written examination but did not emerge successful in the final analysis. On an application made under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to learn that 100 marks was allotted for Viva-voce Test which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible in law. It is also contended that 100 marks was allotted for the Viva-voce Test only for the purpose of giving preference to the favourable candidates. 4. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the Co-operation Department submits that the case laid out by the petitioner is altogether misconceived. 5. Notice is had to the Advertisement dated 21.01.2014, inviting applications for the post of Peon, amongst other. The terms and conditions as indicated in the said Advertisement mentions that interview will be held on the date, time and venue as may be published in the newspaper and separate Call Letters will also be issued to the candidates. In so far as the written examination is concerned, it appears from the document (Annexure-B) that written examination was held only by way of a Screening Test, apparently to short-list candidates for the Viva-voce Test. The said document shows that candidates successful in the Screening Test (Written Exam) will be called for Viva-voce. 6. From the Compiled Result Sheet (Annexure-D), it appears that marks had only been awarded in respect of the Viva-voce test. It thus appear that recruitment to the post of Peon was confined only to a selection by way of Viva-voce test. It was not on the basis of marks obtained in Written Test and Viva voce test. 7. The issue as to whether the State Respondents can be allowed to allot higher percentage of marks in an interview was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Gupta v. State of UP, reported in 2007 SCC 719 . It was not on the basis of marks obtained in Written Test and Viva voce test. 7. The issue as to whether the State Respondents can be allowed to allot higher percentage of marks in an interview was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Gupta v. State of UP, reported in 2007 SCC 719 . At paragraph 22 of the said case, the Apex Court have held that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It was also held that percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of Educational Institutions/Schools will not afford proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to posts in various services. Further, where oral interview alone was made the criteria for selection/appointment to any post, the question of higher percentage of marks for interview would not arise. The said case in Kiran Gupta (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case. To reiterate, selection for the post of Peon was only confined to a selection made by way of an oral interview. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed. No costs.