ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and also the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. I have also perused the records. 2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, the petitioner herein has applied for the post of First Division Assistant (for short ‘FDA’) in respondent No.1 university, under II-A (others) category in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondent No.1 in RCUB/RO/2012-13/1332, dated 25.07.2012. In fact, he attended the interview and thereafter, he was also called for to attend the computer literacy test and he also attended the same. His name was published in the merit list and his ranking was shown at serial number 145, as per Annexure-D. After the computer skill test conducted, the result was not published in the website of the University. But ultimately, the petitioner was not called for any oral interview. The respondent No.1 has issued a Circular on 06.06.2013 giving particulars of the interview date for FDA candidates and in the said Circular, it is made clear that, the candidates who attended the computer skill test, shall also attend the interview on the same day at 2.00 P.M. On 06.06.2013, the respondent No.1 released interview call letter. The computer skill test was conducted subsequently on 17.02.2014 at 9.00 A.M. Thereafter, the interview list was issued, under which, the petitioner was not called upon to attend the interview. Subsequently, the merit list was also announced and the petitioner was not selected for the FDA post. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued before this Court stating that, in the notification itself it is notified that, interview will be called at 1:3 ratio for appointment of the FDA posts. In the II-A category there were two posts available, particularly II-A (others), six eligible candidates have to be called for the interview, but only five were called. 4. The learned counsel also submitted that, the respondents have reduced the ranking of the petitioner from 145 to 150, as per Annexure-H, without there being any intimation to the petitioner. It is also contended that, though it is available in the notification that, the results of the computer test would be published in the website of the respondent No.1, but the same has not been web-hosted. It is also contended that, though it is available in the notification that, the results of the computer test would be published in the website of the respondent No.1, but the same has not been web-hosted. Further she points out that, some other person, who scored marks lesser than the petitioner was also called for interview. Particularly, she points out, one of the person by name Sudhakar G. Naik has been called for interview, though he secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Further she contends that, one of the persons, who applied for the category under IIA(PH) has been given interview and selected under II-A (PH) category. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of the interview in view of the above said irregularities committed by the respondent No.1. 5. The petitioner’s counsel also strenuously contended that, after the interview, the list was not properly web-hosted by the respondent No.1 so as to enable the petitioner to understand why he was not given interview. The marks obtained by him in the computer skill test was also not web-hosted and in-spite of repeated requests, the same has not been provided to him. Further, by filing application under the Right to Information Act, she has taken the said materials and in fact, filed the writ petition. Therefore, she contends before this Court that, in view of the above said irregularities, a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 ought to have given the interview, in that event petitioner would have succeeded in the interview for the post of FDA. Therefore, for all these reasons, the learned counsel requests this Court to set aside the said appointment made by the petitioner, in view of the above said notification. It is also an undisputed fact that, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the successful candidates, who were given appointment under II-A (others) category for the post of FDA. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted before this Court that, there are some procedural irregularities committed by the respondent No.1. Of course, the results of the computer skill tests has not been web-hosted and even after the interview, the list of the candidates, who were called for the interview under II-A category, has also not been published in the website of the respondent No.1. Of course, the results of the computer skill tests has not been web-hosted and even after the interview, the list of the candidates, who were called for the interview under II-A category, has also not been published in the website of the respondent No.1. Except these two procedural irregularities, there is no illegality has been committed by the respondent no.1 in conducting the interview and the computer skill test and giving appointment to the respondent Nos.3 and 4. He contends that, so far as one Mr. Sudhakar Naik, who was given interview under IIA(others) category, though he obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, but the said person was not selected and he contends that, five persons were given interview in the said category plus one person, another person was from category of Ex-Serviceman by giving weightage, that person was given interview under II-A category. 7. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has obtained certain marks in the written examination and two marks in the computer skill test and totally he obtained 58 marks in written examination. So far as other persons, who are selected i.e., the respondent Nos.3 and 4, they have obtained 60 and 66 marks respectively in written test and 9.75 and 3 marks respectively in the computer literary examination and totally, they have obtained 69.75 and 69 marks respectively, for which marks, they stood first and second and they were selected. The petitioner stood as 8th candidate in the list, who obtained 58 marks. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, if one person is removed from the said interview list, this person would not have given interview, because he was at serial number 8 in the ranking list of the candidates under II-A (other) category. Only six persons are eligible for the interview and therefore, six persons were interviewed, though there is some procedural irregularity in giving interview to the Ex-serviceman, in that particular category. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent No.1. 8. He further submits before the Court that, the interview was given only on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the parties in the written test and as well as the Computer Literary examination. 9. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent No.1. 8. He further submits before the Court that, the interview was given only on the basis of the qualifying marks obtained by the parties in the written test and as well as the Computer Literary examination. 9. In view of the above said submission, facts and circumstances, on careful perusal of the entire materials on record it is seen that, there are two irregularities committed by the respondent No.1 in not web-hosting the results of the computer skill test and as well as the final list, which was prepared after computer skill test of the eligible candidates, before the interview under category of IIA(others). Except these two irregularities, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to how the petitioner could be entitled to succeed with reference to the eligibility for the interview under IIA(others) category. Admittedly, the list prepared shows that, this particular person has acquired 56 marks in the written test and two marks in Computer literary examination. Even if two persons are left out, totally out of 8, he would not have been succeeded in getting the interview, because, above him and one Mr. Santosh S. Chittaragi and Mr. Prakash L. Hajeri, who have obtained 58 marks each in the written test and three marks and one mark computer literary, totally they have obtained 61 and 59 marks respectively, who stood above the petitioner. If at all the interview would been given, those two persons are the persons who were eligible for the interview, even if the two persons who were wrongly interviewed in the interview are removed from the list. Therefore, at any rate, it cannot be said that, the petitioner would have succeeded, if the said two persons were not wrongly interviewed in the category of II-A (others). 10. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the locusstandi of the petitioner also comes into picture. If the persons, who are successful under the said category, if for any reasons, the Court finds that, those persons are not eligible for the post of FDA in any manner, then the petitioner must be the person, who should get that particular post. In that eventuality only, the petitioner has got locusstandi to challenge and question the notification and any procedural irregularity committed by the respondent No.1. In that eventuality only, the petitioner has got locusstandi to challenge and question the notification and any procedural irregularity committed by the respondent No.1. Otherwise, even if the above said irregularities are considered as illegalities and the interview given to other persons were held to be illegal, even then, the petitioner may not get an opportunity for the interview, because of the marks obtained by him. Therefore, even though there are some irregularities are committed by the respondent No.1 in not web-hosting the computer skill test and also the candidates list, who were selected for the interview under II-A (other) categories, it only amounts to serious procedural irregularity to the petitioner, but not an illegality so as to enable the of the petitioner to seek for setting aside the entire appointment. Under the above said circumstances, I don’t find any strong reasons to interfere with the appointment order issued by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.