JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also herd Mr. U. K. Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent No.1. Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appears for respondent No.4 whereas Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel appears for respondent No.5. 2. In this writ petition the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 in the post of Driver under the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar at Silchar has been assailed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the answer given by the petitioner with regard to question No.1(x) was correct but no marks was assigned to him on that behalf. Secondly, the respondent No.5 had failed to produce the certificate of experience for five years as required by the advertisement and therefore, according to the petitioner, he did not meet the eligibility condition as prescribed by the advertisement notice dated 24.03.2014. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 4. The selection process had comprised of a total of 100 marks out of which there was a written test for 70 marks and oral interview/driving test for 30 marks. 5. The writ petitioner was furnished with a copy of his answer script in response to an application filed under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which has been annexed to the writ petitioner as Annexure-9. I find from the said answer script as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that both the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 had given the same answer against the question No.1(x) but none of them have been given any marks against the said question. It is the undisputed factual position that out of 70 marks in the written test both the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 had scored equal marks i.e. 31 marks but in the viva voce test, the respondent No.5 had scored 1(one) mark more than the petitioner i.e. 24 out of 30 as a result of which he had stolen a march over the writ petitioner by one mark with a grand total of 55 marks. Since the petitioner has not assailed the marks given to the respondent No.5 with regard to the other questions nor has he disputed the marks awarded to him with regard to the remaining questions in his answer script, I am of the view that the petitioner had not suffered any prejudice on account of wrong marking in respect of question No.1(x) because if 2 (two) marks is given to the petitioner against the said question, similar benefit would also have to be given to the respondent No.5 in which event, their merit position would remain unaltered in so far as the score in the written test is concerned. If that be so, the ultimate score of both candidates would remain separated by one mark tilting in favour of the respondent No.5. 6. Coming to the next objection raised by the petitioner as regards non-availability of experience certificate, I find that the petitioner has averred that the company under which the respondent No.5 was employed i.e. respondent No.4 was incorporated only on 07.07.2011 and as such, on the date of submission of the experience certificate the company was only three years six months and 23 days old i.e. short of five years period. However, meeting the said allegation, the respondent No.4 i.e. the company has filed an affidavit inter-alia stating that even prior to the incorporation of the company, the respondent No.5 had worked under the various contractors and was driving their personal cars as a result of which he had the requisite experience of more than five years. The writ petitioner has not filed any rejoinder contesting the said plea of the respondent No.4. 7. Although Mr. Bhuyan has raised a question as to whether the experience gained by the respondent No.5 under a private person/company would be counted under the advertisement notice dated 24.03.2014, yet, I find from the record that the said advertisement did not lay down any criteria that the experience should be only under a public institution. If that be so, the aforesaid ground taken by the petitioner is also found to be untenable. Consequently, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference of this Court in the matter. 8. In view of the observations made herein in above, this writ petition stands disposed of by rejecting the prayer made therein. No order as to cost.