JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3612 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed, so far as it relates to writ petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, the appellant nos.1 to 7 herein. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- 3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondent nos.4 to 6 jointly have issued an advertisement no.01/2017 for the enrolment of Home Guard in the District vide advertisement dated 22.02.2017 in the Daily News Paper Prabhat Khabar, Seraikela. 4. The minimum qualification for selection and enrolment on the post of Home Guard has been prescribed as 7th pass for Rural Home Guard and the minimum age of the candidates must be 19 to 40 years. The final selection was to be made on the basis of three tier selection process. 5. The candidate was required to appear firstly in the physical test, secondly in the written test and thirdly in the physical fitness test with medical test. 6. The petitioners being eligible, in all respects, submitted application for enrolment/appointment on the post of Home Guard as advertised by Advertisement No.01/2017. The candidature of the petitioners were verified by the office of the respondent nos.4 to 6 and the petitioners were found to be eligible to participate in the selection process and therefore, the admit card was issued to the petitioners to appear in the physical and written test. The writ petitioners cleared the physical and written test. 7. The petitioners were declared successful in the physical and written test by the respondent no.6. The writ petitioners during the selection process have noticed that the respondents are not following the standard process of selection and the same may lead to mal-practice. 8. Thereafter, the writ petitioners had given representations on 04.11.2019 and 03.02.2020 to the respondent no.4 but no decision was taken on the representations of the petitioners. 9. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the respondent nos.4 to 6, have not conducted the selection process in just and proper manner. 10. 8. Thereafter, the writ petitioners had given representations on 04.11.2019 and 03.02.2020 to the respondent no.4 but no decision was taken on the representations of the petitioners. 9. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the respondent nos.4 to 6, have not conducted the selection process in just and proper manner. 10. In rural area, the total vacancy was for 411 Home Guard and in Urban area, the vacancy was for 259 Home Guards but in Rural area, the 411 candidates were called for final medical test and document verification. But, in urban area, only 52 candidates were called for final selection process out of 259 vacancy. 11. It is the further case of the appellants that the respondents have declared those candidates successful, who have even not participated in the selection process. Even the candidates having lesser marks than the appellants have been called for medical test and document verification. 12. It appears from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as referred hereinabove that the appellants-petitioners who have not been selected along with writ petitioner nos.4, 10 and 12, namely, Santosh Gorai, Sachin Gope and Samant Mahato (the proforma respondents herein) respectively, have approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3612 of 2020 seeking therein the following prayers:- “(a) For issuance of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to pass reasoned order upon the representation of the petitioners and 03.02.2020 (Annexure-4) and dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure-6), as the persons/candidates declared successful have scored less marks then the petitioners are selected and called for medical and document verification illegally. (b) For issuance of direction directing the respondent No. 4 to show cause as to how without any rule the advertisement no. 01/2017 dated 22.02.2017 has been issued in spite of the direction for stoppage of recruitment process has been issued by the respondent no. 01.” 13. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the fact as has been put-forth before it as also taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit, has dismissed the writ petition with respect to petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, out of which, the appellants herein, seven in numbers, have been declared to be not successful, since, they did not secure enough marks to be called for medical test etc. 14. 14. However, the case so far as it relates to the writ petitioner nos.4, 10 and 12 are concerned, the same has been disposed of with the liberty to file representation before the respondent no.4 along with copy of the order of writ Court in order to satisfy the authority regarding their eligibility with reference to their age as per the advertisement and further, the respondent no.4 was directed to consider their grievance and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of representation. 15. The appellants herein, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge, has not appreciated the factual aspect in right perspective that even though, the appellants herein have secured more marks than the last selected candidates but they have been declared to be unsuccessful and as such, the instant appeal. 16. Per Contra, Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C.-IV appearing for the respondent-State has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge by making submission that the appellants herein since had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates, hence, they have not been found to be successful and as such, the order impugned suffers from no infirmity. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 18. The grievance of the appellants as has been put-forth by filing the appeal that they have secured enough marks for calling them in the medical test etc. for the purpose of recruitment in terms of advertisement no.01/2017 but the aforesaid factual aspect has not rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 19. While on the other hand, the plea of the State as per the counter affidavit filed before the writ Court is that the appellants have not secured enough marks to be called for in the medical test etc. 20. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submissions, has directed the State to come with the comparative chart of the appellants giving therein the marks secured by the last selected candidates and the marks secured by the appellants individually. 21. An affidavit has been filed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2023. 20. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submissions, has directed the State to come with the comparative chart of the appellants giving therein the marks secured by the last selected candidates and the marks secured by the appellants individually. 21. An affidavit has been filed in terms of the aforesaid order dated 11.09.2023. The said affidavit, although, has been served upon the learned counsel for the appellants but no rebuttal reply has been filed. 22. We, on consideration of the paragraphs of aforesaid affidavit, particularly, paragraph-5, wherein, the comparative assessment of the marks obtained by all the appellants along with the marks secured by the last selected candidates in the female/male category, has been referred therein, for ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:- Appellant No.1 S. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 1 Pinki Mahato 14.06.1992 Female Ichagarh 31 Last candidate selected Champa Manjhi 08.07.1991 Female Ichagarh 32 Sulochan Gope 01.01.1991 Female Ichagarh 23 [5% reservation under widow quota] Appellant No.2 S. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 2 Sudhir Mahato 04.06.1994 Male Ichagarh 26 Last candidate selected Guruwa Singh Munda 04.02.1994 Male Ichagarh 27 Appellant No.3 Sl. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 3 Pradeep Kumar Saw 18.10.1988 Male Ichagarh 26 Last candidate selected Guruwa Singh Munda 04.02.1994 Male Ichagarh 27 Appellant No.4 S. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 4 Prakash Singh Munda 10.01.1989 Male Kukudu 22 Last candidate selected Umapad Singh Munda 02.03.1990 Male Kukudu 24 Appellant No.5 S. No. Name Date of birth Category Block Marks 5 Rajesh Mahato 09.10.1990 Male Gamhariya 23 Last candidate selected Sanjay Mahato 18.07.1994 Male Gamhariya 25 Appellant No.6 S. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 6. Kashi Nath Mahato 03.01.1993 Male Kuduku 21 Last candidate selected Umapad Singh Munda 02.03.1990 Male Kuduku 24 Appellant No.7 S. No. Name Date of Birth Category Block Marks 7. Manoj Kumar Mahato 11.03.1988 Male Ichagarh 25 Last candidate selected Guruwa Singh Munda 04.02.1994 Male Ichagarh 27 23. It is evident from the aforesaid tabular chart as referred hereinabove that the appellant no.1, namely, Pinki Mahato has secured 31 marks under female category, while, one Champa Manjhi, the last selected candidates, under the female category, has secured 32 marks and Sulochan Gope, has secured 23 marks in the 5 % reservation earmarked for the widow. 24. It is evident from the aforesaid tabular chart as referred hereinabove that the appellant no.1, namely, Pinki Mahato has secured 31 marks under female category, while, one Champa Manjhi, the last selected candidates, under the female category, has secured 32 marks and Sulochan Gope, has secured 23 marks in the 5 % reservation earmarked for the widow. 24. The appellant no.2, namely, Sudhir Mahato has secured 26 marks under male category, while, Guruwa Singh Munda, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 27 marks. 25. The appellant no.3, namely, Pradeep Kumar Saw has secured 26 marks under male category, while, Guruwa Singh Munda, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 27 marks. 26. The appellant no.4, namely, Prakash Singh Munda has secured 22 marks under male category, while, Umapad Singh Munda, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 24 marks. 27. The appellant no.5, namely, Rajesh Mahato has secured 23 marks under male category, while, Sanjay Mahato, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 25 marks. 28. The appellant no.6, namely, Kashi Nath Mahato has secured 21 marks under male category, while, Umapad Singh Munda, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 24 marks. 29. The appellant no.7, namely, Manoj Kumar Mahato has secured 25 marks under male category, while, Guruwa Singh Munda, the last selected candidates, under the male category, has secured 27 marks. 30. It is, thus, evident that all the appellants have secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates and hence, such plea has been taken by the State based upon the process of selection and the preparation of merit list, which is on the basis of performance of one or the other appellants and the other candidates, wherefrom it is evident that the appellants had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates, as would be evident from the tabular chart as referred hereinabove. 31. 31. The aforesaid fact explicitly clarifies that the case of the appellants has rightly not been considered by the Selection Committee, since, they had secured less marks than the last selected candidates and as such, the said fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge as would appear from the finding recorded to that effect therein and based upon the same, the learned Single Judge, has declined to pass positive direction in favour of the appellants. 32. This Court, on the basis of the aforesaid factual aspects as discussed hereinabove, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has declined to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioners, the appellants herein, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 33. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed. 34. In consequent to disposal of this appeal, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.