ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. This intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4824 of 2009, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner was not allowed to use his own typing machine, rather in the typing examination, he was provided with a machine of the Department, which did not work properly, thus the writ petitioner could not succeed in the typing test. It is his contention that opportunity be given to the petitioner by taking fresh typing test. He further submitted that the condition that the candidates had to arrange their own typing machine is evident from column No. 3 of the result of the written test, published in the newspaper (Annexure-4 at page-28 of the appeal). As per him, the machine, which he arranged was not allowed to be used by the respondents, which itself is illegal and the said fact has been over-looked by the learned Single Judge, thus he prays to set aside the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in the writ petition. He also contended that in fact, the writ petitioner was allowed to appear in the typing test examination by virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 15.10.2009. 3. Counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the written examination was conduced, which was of 200 marks: 100 marks was for General Hindi and 100 marks for General Knowledge. He further submitted that as per the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement, only those candidates were declared to be successful, who secured minimum 50% marks in each subject, but the petitioner did not get the required 50% marks in each of the above subject, hence, he was not declared to be successful in the written examination. As per them, the petitioner did not even qualify to appear in the typing test, but by virtue of the interim order dated 15.10.2009, he was allowed to appear in the typing test. As per them, the petitioner did not even qualify to appear in the typing test, but by virtue of the interim order dated 15.10.2009, he was allowed to appear in the typing test. He submitted that the learned Single Judge also considered that the writ petitioner immediately at the earliest opportunity did not take the plea of not allowing him to use his own typing machine, though he had filed an amendment application to the writ petition, thus the Court held that the plea of not allowing to use his own typing machine, resulting in poor performance in the typing examination, does not hold good and is afterthought. As per the State, the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the writ petition against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk under the respondent-State, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2008. The petitioner appeared in the written examination, but he was declared unsuccessful. He preferred writ petition praying therein to allow him to sit in the typing test along with successful candidate, as he contended that even though he secured 50% marks in the written examination, the respondent authorities arbitrarily did not declare him successful in the written examination. The learned Single Judge on the very first date of hearing i.e. on 15.10.2009 by way of an interim measure, allowed the petitioner to sit in the typing test, which was scheduled to be held on 18.10.2009, with a condition that the result should be kept in a sealed cover. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was allowed to sit in the typing examination, pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. In fact, by virtue of the said interim order, one of the main prayers of the petitioner in the writ petition was allowed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kukhi Devi, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 733 has held that by interim measure, the Court cannot give relief to the petitioner which he has sought for as final relief. Para No. 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensibe. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. Para No. 8 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “8. To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensibe. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the government order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable government order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case having been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. ...................” 6. The petitioner appeared in the typing test by virtue of the interim order and it is his case that as he was not allowed to use his own typing machine, he could not perform well, thus he claimed that opportunity should be given to him to again sit in the typing test. His aforesaid contention also cannot be accepted, because it is only the candidates, who were declared to be successful in the written examination was eligible to appear in the typing test. 7. In the advertisement, it has been clearly mentioned that the candidate who has obtained minimum 50% marks in the written examination, will be eligible to appear in the written test. In the counter affidavit, it is the specific stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not obtain required 50% marks in each of the paper i.e. General Hindi and General Knowledge that's why he was not declared successful. Once the petitioner was not declared to be successful in the written examination, he could not have been allowed to appear in the typing test. Interim order was passed ignoring this aspect. 8. Once the petitioner was not declared to be successful in the written examination, he could not have been allowed to appear in the typing test. Interim order was passed ignoring this aspect. 8. Further, his grievance that as he was not allowed to use his own typing machine, thus he did not perform well in the examination, also cannot be accepted. As because during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred to amend the writ petition and on 2.1.2013, an amended writ petition was filed by the petitioner. In the entire amended writ petition, he has not whispered that he was not allowed to use to his own typing machine. 9. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned order has taken note of the aforesaid fact and has concluded that though the petitioner had enough opportunity in the pending writ petition, he did not take the aforesaid ground. Learned Single Judge thus concluded that the story of mal- functioning of typing machine which was provided by the Department is nothing but enough an after-thought. We are also of the same view. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken this ground immediately, rather at a much belated stage, by way of afterthought, this issued has been raised. Thus on both counts, i.e. the petitioner, being unsuccessful candidate in the written examination and the story propounded, being after thought, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in this appeal. We find no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.