1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.6.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 166 of 2008 and other connected cases.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal may be briefly stated at the very out set.

An advertisement dated 20.1.2007 was issued by the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare, Assam inviting applications for filling up a few posts of Physical Instructor for High/Higher Secondary schools in the State. The said advertisement was published in the leading newspapers of the State on 28.1.2007. Though the number of vacancies proposed to be filled up were not specifically mentioned in the advertisement, detailed stipulations were mentioned therein with regard to the conditions of eligibility and the format in which the selection was proposed to be held. Pursuant to the said advertisement 250 applications were received. But after scrutiny, 206 call letters were issued. In all 186 candidates appeared in the selection. There were certain candidates who had become qualified after the advertisement was issued but before the date of selection. They were also allowed to take part in the selection process. The written test which was originally scheduled on 14.7.2007 was subsequently held on 22.7.2007. However, the physical aptitude test was held as per schedule on 15.7.2007 and 16.7.2007.

3. A selection committee consisting of the Director, Sports and Youth Welfare, Government Assam, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Deputy Director and Assistant Director in the Directorate of Sports and Youth Welfare was formed. The selection committee in turn constituted another body to conduct the physical aptitude test. The interview was conducted by the members of the selection committee. Prior to the selection, the selection committee in its meeting held on 21.5.2007 decided the marking pattern as under :

Written Test: 100 Marks.

Physical Aptitude Test: 40 Marks.

Viva voce : 10 Marks.

But it was also decided by the selection committee in that meeting that the marks secured by each candidate in each of the three tests would be converted to percentage form and that the sum total of the 3(three) percentages would be taken as the actual marks secured.

4. On completion of the selection process, a select list of 80 candidates was prepared. But the same was not published. Instead, the list of the selected candidates was sent to the concerned authority for police verification.

5. It was at this stage that a batch of writ petitions were filed before this court challenging the selection made and the appointments proposed to be made on the basis of such selection. The present appellants were also petitioners in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions.

6. The learned Single Judge after a detailed and exhaustive scrutiny of the entire selection process interfered with the selection of 2 candidates bearing Roll Nos. 21 and 127 who were respondent Nos. 45 and 61 in WP(C) No, 1892 of 2008. The reasons for interference with the selection of the said two candidates have been set out in detail in paragraphs 21 and 28 of the impugned judgment, The learned Single Judge also found that two officers who were members of the selection committee had abused the powers vested in them but left it to the decision of the disciplinary authority of the two officers as to what further action including criminal and departmental proceeding should be taken against them. Beyond the above, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any further relief to the petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions.

7. We have heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that in the face of the admission by the authorities themselves about anomalies taking place in the selection process, all the answers scripts should have been examined but