JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Asstt. SG appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the outcome of the selection process which was carried out in terms of the advertisement dated 11.11.2013, [Annexure4 to the writ petition] for the post of CT/Safai Karmachari declaring him unfit. The petitioner had applied against a vacancy for the SC candidate. 3. From the communication dated 22.02.2014 [Annexure7 to the writ petition] addressed to the petitioner, it would appear that during the recruitment test conducted by the competent authority (the Recruitment Board) at GC, CRPF, Agartala he was found unfit being squint. However, the petitioner was informed that he may appeal against such declaration of the “medical unfitness” within 15 days from the day of the communication dated 22.02.2014. The petitioner, accordingly, got himself examined by the Medical Officer namely Dr. B.K. Pal of I.G.M. Hospital, Agartala who had categorically observed that the petitioner did not suffer from any communicable or other diseases and such certificate was given consciously considering that the petitioner was rejected as unfit for service by the Medical Officer of the CRPF. The said certificate issued by Dr. Pal on 25.02.2014 is available in Annexure8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Medical Board, GC, CRPF and the medical board after a fresh examination of the petitioner has clearly opined that the petitioner is fit and he does not have any squint eye. However, the petitioner was not selected for appointment and being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. The respondents by filing the reply has categorically stated that on comparative merit, the persons having secured the better performance index have been selected. However, that statement was counteracted by the petitioner by filing the rejoinder. This court had directed the respondents to produce the records of the selection process by which the final selection had taken place. 5. Today, Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has produced photo copies of the tabulation sheet as prepared by the Recruitment Board, duly signed by all the five members who constituted the said Recruitment Board. This court had directed the respondents to produce the records of the selection process by which the final selection had taken place. 5. Today, Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has produced photo copies of the tabulation sheet as prepared by the Recruitment Board, duly signed by all the five members who constituted the said Recruitment Board. It appears that the person namely Nikunja Bihari Das who has been appointed in the said vacancy secured total marks 61, whereas the petitioner secured total marks 51. 6. Apparent on the face of the record that there is no infirmity in the selection process neither there is any trace of bias against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. A Copy of the tabulation sheet as produced by Mr. Ray Barman, learned CGC be treated as part of the record for future reference. There shall be no order as to costs.