JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. AD Sharma, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. AD Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D Chakraborthy for the respondent No.3. None appears for the PWD although they are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate submits that old cases of the Department are to be handled by the previous counsel. Be that as it may, since the respondents have already filed their affidavit-in-oppostion, the case is taken up for disposal. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that an Advertisement was floated by respondent No.2 for two post of Junior Assistants (Lower Division Assistants) in which one post was reserved for the ST(H) and the other post for the general category. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 applied for the general category post and pursuant to which they appeared for the written test conducted by the respondent authorities. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 appeared for the written test but the petitioner was not called for the Viva-Voce test and subsequently he came to learn that respondent No.3 has been selected and appointed as Junior Assistant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for publication of the results of the written examination held on 21.11.2010 and publication of the select list. The petitioner has further prayed for restraining the appointment of the respondent No.3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities as per their advertisement have stipulated that the candidates must be well versed with computer knowledge and must know computer both in English and Assamese. He submits that although the petitioner possessed the certificate towards typing and computer knowledge, the respondent authorities failed to conduct any typing test and therefore in absence of such test, the selection could not have been finalized in favour of the respondent No.3. He also submits that no results were declared after the written test was held and therefore the entire process of selection being most perfunctory, the process of selection so far as General category is concerned with the appointment of the respondent No. 3 should be interfered with by this Court. 4. Against the writ petition, respondent Nos. He also submits that no results were declared after the written test was held and therefore the entire process of selection being most perfunctory, the process of selection so far as General category is concerned with the appointment of the respondent No. 3 should be interfered with by this Court. 4. Against the writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been stated that a selection Committee under the Morigaon Rural Road Division comprising of three members was duly constituted and in terms of the Advertisement, the Selection Committee conducted written test on 21.11.2010 and upon evaluation of the answer scripts, a decision was taken by the Selection Committee to call the candidates for Viva Voce test in the ratio of 1 : 4. It was further announced during the written examination that the answer scripts would be evaluated within two hours and the successful candidates would be called for the interview on the same day. Accordingly, the marks obtained by the successful candidates were also displayed in the Notice Board of the examination centre on the same date. As for the necessity to conduct typing test and examination on the knowledge of computer, the respondent authorities have contended that the nature of duty of Junior Assistant is to maintain office files, preparation of pay bills, office correspondence, issue and receipt of documents etc. and to assist the Head Assistant as well as the Senior Assistant in the office. Therefore, typing is not within the scope of the work for the post of Junior Assistant. In that view of the matter, knowledge of typing and computer in terms of the certificate produced by the candidates was found to be sufficient. The respondent No.3 having secured much higher marks than the writ petitioner, respondent No.3 was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. 5. The respondent No.3 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been contended the stipulation of the Advertisement towards the knowledge in typing and computer is besides the qualification of the HSLC from a recognized university or by a Board. 5. The respondent No.3 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been contended the stipulation of the Advertisement towards the knowledge in typing and computer is besides the qualification of the HSLC from a recognized university or by a Board. The Advertisement clearly stipulates that the candidates will appear for the written test and those who have qualified in the written test would be called for the Viva Voce by the Selection Committee and respondent No.3 accordingly participated in the written test and on successful appearance in the written test, he was called for the Viva-Voce test and pursuant to which he was selected and appointed vide office Order No.60 dated 16.12.2010 by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No.3 thereafter joined the post and has been working for the last four months since 8.4.2011, i.e. the date of filing the affidavit. 6. Mr. AD Chakroborthy, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also submits that the writ petition in fact has become infructuous in as much as the prayer of the writ petitioner is for publication of the result in the written examination held on 21.11.2010, publication of the select list on completion of the typing and written test and computer test and also for restraining the respondent No.3 from joining the post in question. He submits that as provided in the Advertisement only those candidates who were qualified in the test were called for Viva Voce by the Selection Committee. The respondent No. 3 having qualified the written test was called for the Viva Voce test and pursuant to which, he was selected and appointed for the post. He further submits that the written test comprised of question pertaining to computer knowledge and the Advertisement clearly not having stipulated the requirement of having a typing test, the petitioner cannot insist upon such test. He therefore submits that the respondent No.3 having clearly obtained marks over the petitioner was appointed to the post in question and under such circumstances, considering the case projected by the writ petitioner, the same being without merit should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties appearing today and I have perused the materials available on record. The post against which the contest has been made is for the lone post of Junior Assistant earmarked for the General category. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties appearing today and I have perused the materials available on record. The post against which the contest has been made is for the lone post of Junior Assistant earmarked for the General category. The respondents have issued their Advertisement wherein they have stipulated the educational qualification of HSLC. Furthermore, it has also been provided that candidates should be well versed in computer knowledge and must know typing both in English and Assamese. The further stipulation is that those who appeared for the written test and have qualified for the same will be called for the Viva Voce test. Based on such procedure, the eligible candidates shall appear for the written test including the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 as can be seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No.3 has apparently scored the required marks in the written test to be called for the Viva Voce test conducted on the same day. From the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the respondent No.3 admittedly has obtained the highest marks for the general category. The stand of the respondents that the marks secured by the candidates in the written test was put up in the Notice Board have also not been controverted by the writ petitioner and therefore I see no reason as to why the same should not be accepted. As may be noticed, the direction sought by the writ petitioner for publication of the results for the written examination held on 21.11.2010 and for restraining of the respondent No.3 from joining the service is no longer alive. Even otherwise on merit, the discrepancy alleged by the writ petitioner is not to be seen. The requirement of conducting test on typing as well as on knowledge of computer is also clearly not the stipulation in the Advertisement for the post in question. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.