JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by the unsuccessful candidate in the selection of retired head-clerk by the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh. 2. Challenging the selection of O.P.2 by the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh, Sri V.Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the advertisement made by the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh, vide Annexure-1, particularly the eligibility criteria contained inpage-9 of the brief at Clause-iv therein, submitted that the selected candidate, i.e., O.P.2 failed to submit the xerox copy of Date of Birth Certificate (H.S.C) at the time of submission of the application for the purpose and on the above premises, Sri Narasingh further contended that the O.P.2 failed in meeting the requirement at the time of submission of application for the post, therefore, selection of such a candidate bypassing the conditions contained in the advertisement in ignorance of the candidature of candidates fully complied with the requirements in the advertisement is improper. Sri Narasingh hence requested this Court for interfering with the action of the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh in selecting the O.P.2 for the post and to direct the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh to consider and select the petitioner as against the advertisement. 3. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government appearing for O.P.1, on the other hand, on production of record though admitted that O.P.2 did not produce the xerox copy of Date of Birth Certificate (H.S.C) to establish his date of birth, as desired in the enclosed advertisement but from the document submitted by O.P.2 and as enclosed in the application form, there is substantial compliance of the requirement involving the date of birth of the O.P.2. It is thus contended by Sri Mishra that no wrong has been committed by the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh leaving any scope for interference by this Court in the impugned selection. Further referring to the nature of interview and the selection being limited for one year, Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there cannot be application of hard and fast principles applied filling permanent vacancies. Sri Mishra under the above premises claimed that there is no illegality in the selection of the head-clerk. 4. Further referring to the nature of interview and the selection being limited for one year, Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there cannot be application of hard and fast principles applied filling permanent vacancies. Sri Mishra under the above premises claimed that there is no illegality in the selection of the head-clerk. 4. Hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court finds from the advertisement appearing at Annexure-1 that the alleged interview was for retired head-clerk for one year and that too, purely temporary on contract basis and further following a Walk-In-Interview process. Following the advertisement there were six candidates applied for the post and the selection took place considering the records produced by the respective parties including the petitioner and the O.P.2, the selected candidate. An evaluation sheet was prepared by three independent members of the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh and taking into consideration all the three evaluation sheets, marks awarded in the evaluation sheets by three different members, the Recruitment Committee found O.P.2 as the person securing highest mark amongst all the candidates-appeared for the post of head-clerk. Further scrutiny of the evaluation sheets prepared for the purpose, this Court also finds, the petitioner was also even not coming as candidate next to the successful candidate in the selection involved. Therefore, this Court finds, the petitioner not being the second candidate in the select list and no challenge to the selection by the second candidate, the claim of the petitioner cannot be otherwise sustained. In the event of any interference, there is also no scope for the petitioner being selected. Further from the advertisement, this Court finds, the selection has been made through Walk-In-Interview from amongst the head-clerks retired not only on temporary basis but also for a period of one year and six months have already expired in the meantime. Accordingly, this Court finds, no purpose will be otherwise served by interfering in such selection process. 5. Further from the advertisement, this Court finds, the selection has been made through Walk-In-Interview from amongst the head-clerks retired not only on temporary basis but also for a period of one year and six months have already expired in the meantime. Accordingly, this Court finds, no purpose will be otherwise served by interfering in such selection process. 5. Looking to the mode of selection, considering the submissions of the respective counsel and after perusal of the record involving selection being produced by the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh, the selection being made through Walk-in-Interview and criteria being handmade instruction requiring Xerox copy of Date of Birth Certificate(H.S.C) and looking to the information supplied by the O.P.2 through his application form even though no such document enclosed therein, this Court finds, the date of birth indicated in the service record of the petitioner while continuing in the Court of S.D.J.M.(S), Sambalpur is tallied with the information through the application form at condition no.vi. Accordingly, this Court finds, there is substantial compliance of the requirement and no material irregularity involved in the alleged selection. Further for the nature and tenor of appointment being temporary that too for one year, this Court finds little scope for interfering in such matters. Further this Court also observes that the petitioner stood at serial no.3 in the selection process, for which he is also not otherwise going to be benefited in the event of interference therein. 6. Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the writ petition does not bear any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. No cost.