ORDER : A.S SUPEHIA, J. 1. Present petition is filed seeking prayer for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent no. 3 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Vidhya Sahayak. 2. By order dated 01.09.2005, this Court had passed following order:— Heard the learned advocates. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Sood and learned advocate Mr. Munshaw waive service of rule on behalf of the concerned respondents. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 10th July, 2004 the petitioner had applied for appointment as Vidya Sahayak as a Scheduled Caste candidate. He came to be selected and placed on the merit list at Serial No. 43 in the list of successful candidates in Scheduled Caste category. Nevertheless, the petitioner has not been issued appointment order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. In answer to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent Primary Eduction Committee has appeared through the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw and has contested the petition. It is stated that at the time of interview certain candidates produced sports certificate for which they were entitled to additional marks. As those candidates were given additional marks, the petitioner was pushed out of the merit list. The counter-affidavit is not specific. The tenor appears to be that even those candidates who were not included in the merit list were called for interview and were allowed to supplement their applications by producing additional materials. On additional marks being given on such additional materials they came within the merit list. In the result the petitioner has been pushed out of the merit list. I see no justification in the action of the respondent Primary Education Committee; first, in calling the candidates who were not included in the merit list for interview and; second, in allowing such candidates to submit further materials at the time of the interview. I am of the opinion that whatever supporting material is required to be placed on record shall be submitted with the applications. No candidate can be permitted to submit further materials at the time of interview. Besides, the respondent Primary Education Committee has not come out with specific cases in which such indulgence was granted, the extent to which such indulgence was granted and the reason for which such indulgence was required. No candidate can be permitted to submit further materials at the time of interview. Besides, the respondent Primary Education Committee has not come out with specific cases in which such indulgence was granted, the extent to which such indulgence was granted and the reason for which such indulgence was required. In absence of specific materials on record an inference can be drawn against the respondent Primary Education Committee. The petitioner has suffered injustice on account of the above referred illegal procedure adopted by the respondent Primary Education Committee. For the aforesaid reasons, pending this petition the respondents are directed to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner herein and to give him appropriate posting. The appointment of the petitioner as Vidya Sahayak pursuant to this order shall be ad hoc and subject to the result of this petition. In the event the petitioner loses in this petition he shall not be entitled to claim equity.” 3. Today, when the matter is called out, Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner states that despite his best efforts, he is unable to contact his client. 4. Mr. Devang R. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent no. 3 has stated that, as such he has also no information from his client. 5. The aforesaid order clearly stipulates that the appointment order passed in favour of the petitioner will be subject to final outcome of the petition. In absence of any instructions to both sides, present petition stand disposed of with a liberty to either side to revive in case of difficulty.