JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned standing counsel, Health Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. A. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 7. 2. In this writ petition, the selection and the consequent appointment of the respondent No. 7 against the second vacancy of Sr. Treatment Supervisor (STS) in the Dhemaji T.B. Cell has been put under challenge. 3. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are these. On 12-03-2015, the Director of Health Services, Assam, i.e. the respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement notice inviting applications for filling up of various posts including the post of STS under the different districts/ T.B. Cells in Assam. The advertisement notice dated 12-03-2015 had mentioned the qualification and the salary attached to each posts but did not indicate the procedure that would be adopted for selection of the candidates. The respondent authorities had held a written test wherein the writ petitioner had participated and scored 86 marks. Accordingly, he was called for the viva-vocetest. However, eventually the respondent No. 7, who had scored only 47 marks in the written test, was selected for the second post of STS solely on the basis of her score in the viva-vocetest which was 62 as against 57 marks obtained by the writ petitioner. By the impugned order dated 29-06-2015, the respondent No. 7 was recommended as one of the selected candidates for appointment in the Dhemaji district T.B. Centre. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case no criterion for selection had been mentioned in the advertisement notice. However, after the applications were received, the respondents had secretly evolved the selection criteria whereby it was decided that the marks obtained only in the viva-vocetest would be taken into account for final selection of the candidates and accordingly, prepared the merit list on the marks obtained in the viva-voce test so as to suit their preferred candidate. Mr. Biswas has also argued that his client had answered almost all the questions correctly in the vivavocetest but was still not selected. Mr. Biswas has also argued that his client had answered almost all the questions correctly in the vivavocetest but was still not selected. It is also the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that originally the name of the respondent No. 7 was not shortlisted for the viva-voce test but taking advantage of the fact that her father was serving in the post of Joint Director, Health Services-cum-T.B. Officer, Dhemaji, the exercise was redone so as to accommodate the respondent No. 7 and that is how she was selected for appointment on the basis of very high marks awarded in the viva-vocetest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia & Ors. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in (1981)1 SCC 722 , law is settled that in the matter of public employment oral interview test should not be relied upon as an exclusive test but notwithstanding the same and despite the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 633 the respondents have prepared the select list exclusively on the basis of the marks obtained in the viva-vocetest only to extend undue favour to their preferred candidate. 6. Mr. D.P. Borah, learned departmental counsel, on the other hand, has invited attention of this Court to the statements made in the counter-counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 as well as the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 24-04-2015 to contend that the decision to prepare the final select list based on viva-voce test was adopted in a meeting of the selection committee before conducting the written test and by the said resolution, and it was also decided that the candidates would be short listed at the ratio 1:4 against each post based on the marks obtained in the written test. While denying the allegation of malafidein the selection process, the learned departmental counsel has urged that the father of the respondent No. 7 did not take part in the selection process. He has also submitted that list of the shortlisted candidates were initially prepared on an erroneous basis at the ratio of 1:3 as a result of which, the name of the respondent No. 7 did not figure in the said list. He has also submitted that list of the shortlisted candidates were initially prepared on an erroneous basis at the ratio of 1:3 as a result of which, the name of the respondent No. 7 did not figure in the said list. However, realizing the mistake, a fresh list was prepared as per the resolution dated 24-04-2015 by following the ratio 1:4 in which list, the name of the respondent No. 7 was also included on the basis of marks obtained by her in the written test. 7. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned departmental counsel and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submission advanced at the bar and have also examined the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 12-03-2015, the writ petitioner had submitted his candidature and in the written examination he had scored a total of 86 as compared to 47 marks scored by the respondent No. 7. However, the marks scored by the candidates in the written test were used only for the purpose of preparing a list of candidates who could be called for the vivavocetest. The final merit list was prepared exclusively on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the viva-vocetest. It is also apparent from the materials on record that the decision to prepare the final merit list only on the basis of the viva voce test was taken by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 24-04-2015 i.e. on a date prior to the holding of the written test. But surprisingly, the petitioner has not challenged the said resolution despite the fact that the same was available on record. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that the said resolution was never published as a result of which candidates such as the writ petitioner was not aware of the same. However, there is no explanation as to why the resolution dated 24-04-2015 could not be challenged even subsequently, i.e. after the same was brought on record by the official respondents. 9. However, there is no explanation as to why the resolution dated 24-04-2015 could not be challenged even subsequently, i.e. after the same was brought on record by the official respondents. 9. From a careful examination of the pleadings contained in the writ petition, I find that in substance, the basic case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition pertains to the in-correct reflection of his age in the merit list which was allegedly shown 39 years. But the respondents have clarified in their affidavit that the respondent No. 7 was selected on the basis of the marks obtained in the viva vocetest. 10. Taking note of the materials produced before this court, the learned single judge had earlier passed an interim order dated 19-06-2017 in this writ proceeding suspending the operation of the order of appointment of the respondent No. 7. In the order dated 19-06-2017 it has, however, been recorded that “ in the viva voce segment, Alpana Baruahhad secured 62 marks as compared to 57 marks of the petitioner and that is how she along with BidyutSarma, who secured 59marksin the viva voce, was recommended for appointment to the post of STS”. After the facts, as noted above, were brought before the court, not to speak of amending the writ petition, the petitioner has not even filed rejoinder against the return filed by the official respondents. 11. It is also to be noted here-in that taking cognizance of the facts and circumstances of this case, by the order dated 19-06-2017, the learned Single Judge had granted liberty to the writ petitioner to implead the other selected candidate viz. Bidyut Sarma as a party to this proceeding. When the petitioner had failed to implead Bidyut Sarma despite the leave granted by the Court earlier, this Court had once again given an opportunity to writ petitioner to implead the said candidate but such offer was also declined by the petitioner’s counsel which would be evident from the order dated 19-06-2018 passed in this writ proceeding. 12. When the petitioner had failed to implead Bidyut Sarma despite the leave granted by the Court earlier, this Court had once again given an opportunity to writ petitioner to implead the said candidate but such offer was also declined by the petitioner’s counsel which would be evident from the order dated 19-06-2018 passed in this writ proceeding. 12. In the case of Ajay Hasia(Supra)while dealing with an issue of similar nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in the matter of public employment, oral interview test should not be exclusively relied upon but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and in doing so, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct oral interview tests are man of high integrity, caliber and qualification. In Praveen Singh (Supra) the Supreme Court has further observed that the selection test cannot be exclusively held on the basis of viva-voceby ignoring the marks obtained in the written test, since making the selection exclusively on the basis of viva-voce test would be unreasonable and arbitrary. What crystallizes from the aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court is that, ordinarily, vivavocetest should not be the sole basis for conducting the recruitment process in case of public employment and the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test should also be taken into consideration while preparing the final select list. 13. It would be significant to note here-in that the selection criteria in this case was laid down by the resolution dated 24-04-2015 well before conducting the written test but the said resolution is admittedly not under challenge in this writ proceeding. Mr. Biswas has argued that the authorities, having conducting the written test and viva-voceexamination, ought to have prepared the merit list based on sum total of marks obtained in both the tests, which has not been done in the present case. However, in the absence of any challenge to the selection criteria adopted by the authorities, this court can neither direct the respondent authorities to act in a manner contrary to the resolution dated 24-04-2015 not can this court evolve its own criterion for selection of candidates and direct the respondents to act on such basis. However, in the absence of any challenge to the selection criteria adopted by the authorities, this court can neither direct the respondent authorities to act in a manner contrary to the resolution dated 24-04-2015 not can this court evolve its own criterion for selection of candidates and direct the respondents to act on such basis. What cannot be lost sight of in this case is the fact that the respondent No. 7 has admittedly scored higher marks than the petitioner in the vivavocetest and that is the basis of her selection. 14. As noted above, despite the leave granted by this court, the writ petitioner has failed to implead the other selected candidate viz. Bidyut Sarma in this proceeding. The marks obtained by the said selected candidate in the written test are not on record. Therefore, even if the omission by the petitioner to challenge the resolution dated 24-04-2015 is ignored by this court, even in that case, if the challenge in this writ petition is to be entertained, the only two possible outcome of this proceeding would be either to set aside the entire selection process or to direct the respondents to prepare a fresh select list by giving due weightage to the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test as well as the viva vocetest, in which event, the right and interest of the other selected candidate, viz. Bidyut Sarma would undoubtedly be affected. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that Bidyut Sarma is a necessary party in this proceeding and as such, failure on the part of the writ petitioner to implead him in this proceeding would have fatal consequences. 15. It is also to be noted here-in that although the petitioner has alleged malafidein the selection process on the ground of influence allegedly exerted by the father of the respondent No. 7, yet, her father has also not been made a party to this proceeding. That apart, the petitioner has also failed to substantiate the allegation of biasness in the selection process that had lead to the appointment of the respondent No. 7. That apart, the petitioner has also failed to substantiate the allegation of biasness in the selection process that had lead to the appointment of the respondent No. 7. In the absence of specific particulars brought on record substantiating the allegation of malafide, merely because the father of the respondent No. 7 is working in the post of Joint Director, Health, would not necessarily establish the fact that the selection of the respondent No. 7 is the outcome of a process tainted by biasness. For the reasons stated here-in-before, I am of the un-hesitant opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. Consequently, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.