JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A.S. Lodh, the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. B. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in the post of Graduate Teacher, B.Sc. (Pure Science) for Saradamayee Vidyapith (High School). The school is a Grant-in-aid school. The respondent No. 2, in the year 2010, issued the Advertisement notifying 11 posts of Graduate Teachers. One of the 11 posts was in the discipline of B.Sc. (Pure Science). The petitioner applied for the post of Graduate Teacher, B.Sc. (Pure Science) and accordingly appeared before the Interview Board on 21.09.2010 with all his certificates and testimonials in original. The Interview Board comprised of (1) the District Education Officer, West District Zonal Office, (2) the Secretary of the School Managing Committee, Saradamayee Vidyapith, Teliamura, (3) the Headmistress, Saradamayee Vidyapith (High School), Teliamura and (4) Representative of S.C & S.T Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. The Selection Committee ultimately recommended the name of the respondent No. 4 to the said post whereas the name of the found a place at Sl. No. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that when the guidelines clearly stipulated that if a candidate passed in the B.Sc. Examination in compartmental, he would be entitled to 7 marks, but the private respondent, who passed the Graduation in compartmental was awarded 9 marks thereby enabling him to steal a march over him. 3. On my direction, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has now placed before me the certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations, Tripura University dated 03.05.2017 wherein it was stated that as per the record available in the Office of Controller of Examinations, the respondent No. 4 for the first time appeared in the B.Sc. Part-I TDC Examinations (all papers) in the year 2004 and was declared unsuccessful and that he again appeared in the same examination in the year 2005 and was again declared unsuccessful. Part-I TDC Examinations (all papers) in the year 2004 and was declared unsuccessful and that he again appeared in the same examination in the year 2005 and was again declared unsuccessful. It was also stated therein that in the year 2006, the respondent No. 4 re-appeared in all the papers of the said examination and cleared the same successfully and was promoted to Part-II of B.Sc. It was further stated therein that the private respondent appeared in the B.Sc. Part-II Examinations (all papers) in 2007 as a Regular Student and was declared ‘Pass’ in the B.Sc. Part-II TDC (Three Year Degree Course) Examinations, 2007. From the aforesaid certificate, it is seen that the petitioner, after he failed in the Examination of 2004 and 2005, re-appeared in all the papers in the year 2006 and successfully cleared the examination and was promoted to ‘Pass’. As far as the remaining years are concerned, there is no dispute that they did not pass compartmental. As the private respondent re-appeared in all the papers and was successful in the year 2006, it cannot be said that he passed the degree in compartmental. In this view of the matter, the Selection Board in awarding 9 marks to the respondent No. 4 did not commit any illegality and in recommending him for the post of Graduate Teacher, B.Sc. (Pure Science) as he scored more marks than the petitioner in total in the interview. Resultantly, the interference of this Court is not called for in the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4. 4. For the reasons stated in the above, this writ petition sans merit is dismissed but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.