JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appeal arises out of an order dated 11th April, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 4520 (W) of 2016. The order in its entirety is setout hereinbelow :- “This writ application is formally admitted. Learned counsel for the State hands up a detailed score sheet. It appears that a very comprehensive evaluation method has been adopted by the respondents. If the total score for evaluation of a candidate is hundred, weighted scores are allotted for Post Graduate qualification, Graduate Qualification, Higher Secondary Qualification, experience, Computer test result and so on. The case of the writ petitioner is that he is an Honours Graduate with experience. Even after due consideration of these factors the writ petitioner has not been able to qualify. His rank is eleven in the panel. Therefore, there is no way in which this Court can help out the writ petitioner. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. The writ application is thus disposed of. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis”. 3. Even a plain reading of the order reveals that it does not warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal since there is no palpable infirmity of reasoning noticed therein. However, according to the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner, his client obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, after the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. In such a factual backdrop, he submits that the writ petition may be revived. 4. The submission, as advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner, cannot be accepted. The reason is, any information obtained by the writ petitioner under the Right to Information Act could not have been possibly taken notice of by the learned Single Judge at the time of passing of the impugned order. As such, there cannot be a direction from the Appeal Court upon the learned Single Judge to re-hear the writ petition on the basis of such information obtained by the writ petitioner after the impugned order was passed. As such, there cannot be a direction from the Appeal Court upon the learned Single Judge to re-hear the writ petition on the basis of such information obtained by the writ petitioner after the impugned order was passed. The appeal and the connected applications, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 5. Dismissal of the appeal and the applications, however, will cause no prejudice to the rights of the appellant in the event he adopts any further course of action in accordance with law based on information obtained under the Right to Information Act. Biswanath Somadder & Sankar Acharyya, JJ. I agree.