JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and Mr. A Deka, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam. 2. Pursuant to an employment notice/advertisement for filing up of vacant post of Chowkidar in the Agomani Senior Basic School, the petitioner along with other candidates had applied and participated. 3. Accordingly, the School Level Screening Committee of the Agomani Senior Basic School had conducted a selection process which also included interview of the respective candidates. As a consequence of such selection, a detail particulars of the applicants for the post of Chowkidar of Agomani Senior Basic School was prepared which is annexed as Annexure-16(A), page 76 to the writ petition. Thereafter, by the statement of selection, which is annexed to the writ petition, the respondent No.8, Kabita Roy, was shown to have obtained a total marks of 26, whereas, one Nirmal Ch. Roy, the respondent No.9 was shown to have obtained 24 marks and the petitioner was shown to have obtained a total of 22 marks. On the basis of such selection by the Notification dated 21.12.2011, under the signature of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, a provisional select list was notified. As per the said provisional select list, the respondent No.8, Kabita Roy was shown in the first position and the respondent No.9 was shown in the second position. 4. Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said provisional select list, by referring to page 76 Annexure 16(A) being the detail particulars of the applicants. It is pointed out that the name of respondent No.8, Kobita Roy appears at Sl.No.20 of the said detail particulars and in Clause 9, in respect of viva marks, it is shown that respondent No.8 had obtained 10 marks. 5. It is the case of Mr. Sheikh that on a closer look at the figure 10 i.e., the marks depicted in the Annexure-16(A) detail particulars, there is an over writing and the figure 10 had been superimposed over some other figure which is not clearly legible. Accordingly, it is the submission of Mr. Sheikh that there is manipulation in the selection conducted by the authorities. 6. Mr. Accordingly, it is the submission of Mr. Sheikh that there is manipulation in the selection conducted by the authorities. 6. Mr. Sheikh further refers to Sl.No.1 candidate, Kumar Nripendra Narayan, wherein also in clause 9, the said candidate had got 10 marks, but again that 10 marks has been superimposed over some other marks which is not legible. Mr. Sheikh, therefore, submits that in respect of the said candidate Kumar Nripendra Narayan also there has been manipulation by the Selection Committee. 7. Mr. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department upon close perusal of the Annexure-16(A) Page Nos. 76 and 77 detail particulars, also agrees that figure 10 of clause 9 in respect of respondent No.8 and respondent No.10 has been manipulated and that figure 10 has been superimposed over some other figure. 8. Further Mr. Deka, also refers to the letter dated 19.11.2012 of the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Assam, in the Education Elementary Department addressed to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam wherein it has been stated that there is no evidence whether any selection was conducted and finalized, and, however, as no selection list was published, no candidate can hold any legal claim for appointment. Accordingly by the said order, the Commissioner and Secretary had advised the Director Elementary Education to go for fresh selection. On a reading of the letter dated 19.11.2012, it is not very clear whether the said letter also mentioned about the instant selection or not. Although the said letter merely refers to the selection of Grade III and Grade IV in a general term, rather than a specific reference to the present case, Mr. Deka, submits that the letter covers the case of the present petition also. 9. In view of the categorical finding of this Court that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee as reflected in the details particulars being Annexure-16(A), page 76 and 77 of the writ petition reveals that there were some manipulation and over writing in the marks given to some of the candidates, this Court deems it appropriate that the consequential provisional select list notified by the Notification dated 21.07.2011, in respect of respondent No.8, Kabita Roy is not sustainable. 10. In view of the aforesaid declaration, the State respondent authorities shall not act pursuant to the said Notification dated 21.07.2011, in respect of respondent No.8, Kabita Roy. 10. In view of the aforesaid declaration, the State respondent authorities shall not act pursuant to the said Notification dated 21.07.2011, in respect of respondent No.8, Kabita Roy. However, for the purpose of filling up of the concerned post, the respondent authorities are at liberty to adopt their own procedure as per law. 11. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. 12. Copy of the letter dated 19.11.2012, is kept as part of record.