JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Pritam Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for a review of the select list as prepared in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017, for recruitment against the post of Constable from amongst the Special Police Officers(SPOs) against the sanctioned posts of Constable in Assam Industrial Security Force Battalion. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was appointed as a member of the Home Guards in the year 2012. The petitioner, was, thereafter, engaged as a Special Police Officer(SPO) during the ethnic violence that had occasioned in Kokrajhar District. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that w.e.f. 2012, he had continued to serve as a Special Police Officer(SPO) till he was so discharged therefrom w.e.f. 15.06.2016. The petitioner, for the purpose of establishing the fact that he had rendered his service as a Special Police Officer(SPO), has relied upon a certificate, dated 19.12.2017, as well as on a discharge certificate, dated 07.06.2016, both, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District. 5. It is projected in the writ petition that in pursuance of the issuance of the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017, the petitioner had submitted his application for recruitment against the posts so advertised. The petitioner, thereafter, on being found eligible to participate in the selection process so held in the matter, was issued with call letters for the purpose. It is further contended in the writ petition that after completion of the selection process, on perusal of the Performance Slip, a copy of which was contended to have been given to the petitioner, herein; it was revealed that the marks so required to be given for the period of service rendered by the petitioner as a Special Police Officer(SPO), was not so granted to him and he was given marks for his experience as a Special Police Officer(SPO) for a period of one year only and accordingly, 2 marks came to be so awarded to him. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he, having served as a Special Police Officer(SPO) w.e.f. 2012 to 2016; he was entitled to further 8 marks in this connection. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he, having served as a Special Police Officer(SPO) w.e.f. 2012 to 2016; he was entitled to further 8 marks in this connection. The marks so awarded to the petitioner, in the selection process, having not brought him within the merit position mandating an order of appointment to be issued in his case; the petitioner, being aggrieved, has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017, has submitted that for service experience as a Special Police Officer(SPO), 10 marks were ear-marked in the selection process and the marks was to be so allotted at the rate of 2 marks for each year of service so rendered as a Special Police Officer(SPO). The learned counsel by further referring to the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in the year 2012 and he had continued to serve in the same capacity till 07.06.2016 when he was discharged from the said engagement as a Special Police Officer(SPO) w.e.f. 15.06.2016. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner not having been authorized the marks for the entire period of his service tenure as a Special Police Officer(SPO); the petitioner came to be denied an appointment against a post of Constable so advertised vide the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, has placed reliance upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Bikash Bania & 5 ors., v. State of Assam & ors. [order, dated 10.05.2024, in WP(c)3734/2022 and other analogous matters]. 8. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, by placing on record, the instructions received by him, has submitted that the petitioner along with his application, had only submitted the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued to him by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, pertaining to his engagement as a Special Police Officer(SPO). The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate has further submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid certificate would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, was so engaged in the year 2012. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate has further submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid certificate would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, was so engaged in the year 2012. Accordingly, basing on the disclosure made in the said certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District; the Selection Committee had granted 2 marks to the petitioner for the service rendered by him as a Special Police Officer(SPO). It is also submitted by the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate that the petitioner had not brought on record any further material to demonstrate that he had rendered his service as a Special Police Officer(SPO) beyond 2012. 9. Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, by referring to the Performance Slip brought on record by the respondent authorities in the affidavit filed by them in the matter, has contended that the Selection committee after verification of the documents so submitted by the petitioner, had held that the petitioner had experience of working as a Special Police Officer(SPO) for a period of 1(one) year and accordingly, he was granted 2 marks for the purpose. The marks granted and his performance as recorded in the said Performance Slip, was accepted to be correct by the petitioner by appending his signature at the designated place therein. In view of the above position, Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that this writ petition would not merit consideration of this Court and the same would be called to be dismissed in limine. 10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The facts as noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute. 12. A perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his application, placed before this Court by Mr. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, would go to reveal that with regard to the service rendered by the petitioner, herein, as a Special Police Officer(SPO); the petitioner had only brought on record the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, would go to reveal that with regard to the service rendered by the petitioner, herein, as a Special Police Officer(SPO); the petitioner had only brought on record the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District. Although the petitioner in the present proceeding, has also brought on record, the discharge certificate, dated 07.06.2016, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, by which, he was purportedly discharged from his engagement as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in Kokrajhar District w.e.f. 15.06.2016; however, the said certificate was not produced before the selection committee while the selection in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017, was so conducted. 13. In view of the above position, this Court had put a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the discharge certificate, dated 07.06.2016, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, was also produced before the selection committee during the conduct of the selection process, in question. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly submitted that the said discharge certificate, dated 07.06.2016, was not produced by the petitioner before the selection committee and only the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, was produced by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing the service rendered by him as a Special Police Officer(SPO). 14. In view of the above position, the petitioner not having brought on record any other material other than the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, for the purpose of establishing the period of service rendered by him as a Special Police Officer(SPO); this Court is now required to examine the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District. 15. A perusal of the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, would go to show that the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, had certified that the petitioner was engaged as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in Kokrajhar District during the year 2012 ethnic problem and he had discharged his duties with professional commitment, devotion and utmost sincerity. The said certificate only indicates that the petitioner was engaged during the year 2012 as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in Kokrajhar District and it does not reveal that the petitioner had served in the said capacity beyond 2012. 16. The said certificate only indicates that the petitioner was engaged during the year 2012 as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in Kokrajhar District and it does not reveal that the petitioner had served in the said capacity beyond 2012. 16. The said certificate being the only material available before the selection committee; the determination made by the selection committee with regard to the service rendered by the petitioner and quantifying the same to be one year and granting the petitioner 2 marks upon such determination made, cannot be said to be erroneous. 17. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bikash Bania (supra) & other analogous matters, had, on the basis of consensus arrived at in the matter by the parties to the proceeding; held that in cases where the duration of the engagement as a Special Police Officer (SPO) was not so specified in the certificates issued by the competent authority, practice of allotting 2(two) marks as the standard marking; was proper. 18. In the case on hand also; the certificate, dated 19.12.2017, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar District, relied upon by the petitioner in the selection with regard to his engagement as a Special Police Officer(SPO), also does not specify the duration of the engagement of the petitioner as a Special Police Officer(SPO) in Kokrajhar District. Accordingly, the grant of 2 marks to the petitioner by the selection committee, in the facts and circumstances involved, is to be held to be adequate. 19. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court; this Court is of the considered view that while granting marks to the petitioner for his experience as a Special Police Officer(SPO); the selection committee had not committed any error and accordingly, the same would not call for any interference. 20. Accordingly, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.