JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, C.J. 1. The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 21.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.450/2017. 2. The issue in the instant appeal relates to appointment to the post of MMR & Kazi, Sonai in Cachar District. The private respondent herein by filing W.P. (C) No.450/2017 raised a grievance with regard to his non-selection to the post and, accordingly, had assailed the decision of the Permanent Committee in the meeting held on 22.12.2016. Through the said decision, the appellant herein had been selected as MMR & Kazi. 3. The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the rival contentions, for better appreciation of the same, had extracted the resolution of the Permanent Committee dated 22.12.2016. From the said resolution, it is noticed that though the private respondent herein had secured more marks than the appellant, his selection was not considered since the Committee was of the opinion that the equivalence certificate relied upon by the private respondent herein was not genuine. The learned Single Judge in order to consider whether the said decision was appropriate had secured clarification with regard to the same and it was noticed by the Director of Secondary Education based on the records of appointment that the document was genuine. It is in that light, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the rejection of the case of the private respondent herein was not justified and, accordingly, has set aside the Resolution No.5 passed by the Permanent Committee dated 22.12.2016 and has directed reconsideration within a period of two months. The appellant herein who had been selected by the said resolution dated 22.12.2016 is, therefore, before this Court in this intra-court appeal assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. KN Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for private respondent No.1 and perused the appeal papers. 5. The factual matrix as averred would lie in a narrow campus. The only question at this juncture is whether the Permanent Committee was justified in rejecting the candidature of the private respondent on the ground that the equivalence certificate is not a genuine one. 6. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for private respondent No.1 and perused the appeal papers. 5. The factual matrix as averred would lie in a narrow campus. The only question at this juncture is whether the Permanent Committee was justified in rejecting the candidature of the private respondent on the ground that the equivalence certificate is not a genuine one. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would no doubt contend that the appropriate equivalence certificate was required to be issued by the Government and the equivalence certificate as relied by the private respondent is not in accordance with law. Though such contention is put forth, we are of the opinion that such consideration on the appeal papers is pre-mature. This is for the reason that through the resolution impugned dated 22.12.2016, the candidature of the private respondent herein was not considered on the ground that the equivalence certificate was not genuine. In that view of the matter, on a re-consideration, as ordered by the learned Single Judge, the other aspects of the matter relating to the candidature of the private respondent would be considered along with that of the appellant. In that view of the matter, in a circumstance where the equivalence certificate was held as genuine, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the Resolution No.5 and directing reconsideration. In that view, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 7. That apart, it is noticed that in view of the observation of the learned Single Judge that the appellant herein cannot challenge the equivalence certificate in the instant proceeding, but would have to do so in a fresh proceeding, the appellant has also admittedly filed another writ petition in W.P.(C) No.6632/2018. If any other contentions are urged by the appellant herein in the said proceeding, the same are left open for consideration in that regard. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.