JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri Z Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam.

2. The issue involved is with regard to a recruitment process initiated vide an advertisement dated 21.10.2011 for the post of Wardboy in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. The said process was initiated for a total 15 posts, out of which, 7 posts were for unreserved category to which the petitioner belongs.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that being qualified, he had submitted his candidature in response to the said advertisement and on 23.05.2012, Call Letter was issued to him for the written test which was scheduled on 10.06.2012. The petitioner had appeared in the said written test with Roll No. 202735.

4. Shri Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the results of the written test which was published in the Dainik Janasadharan in its issue dated 18.07.2012 wherein he was stated to be qualified. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had also fared well in the subsequent oral interview, in spite of which, he was not amongst the selected candidates. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. While in paragraph 5, it has been stated that there has been illegal, arbitrary and malafide action of the authorities in not selecting the petitioner, in paragraph 6, the petitioner has cited 7 roll numbers and has made an allegation that those candidates did not even appear in the oral interview but were, however, selected.

5. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel, accordingly submits that the selection be set aside and a direction be issued for consideration and appointment of the petitioner.

6. Ms. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that there is no foundation of the challenge made in petition and in the petition, vague allegations have been made. She submits that the recruitment process consisted of two components, namely, written and oral and only on being finally qualified and selected, appointments were offered. In the instant case, while the petitioner could clear the written examination, he could not qualify in the oral examination and therefore, was not amongst the selected candidates. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.11.2017, the learned Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraph 7 thereof which is in reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition and the allegations have been categorically denied. Reference has also been made to the averments in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition whereby, the allegation that 7 numbers of persons did not appear in the oral examination has not only been denied but the details of those candidates have also been given.

7. The rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

8. The challenge, as mentioned above, is with regard a recruitment process in which, admittedly, there were two components, namely, written and oral. Mere qualification in the written examination would not be sufficient and one has to be selected even in the oral interview which would make a candidate eligible for appointment based on the merit and the vacancy position. In the instant case, though the petitioner was successful in the written examination, he could not qualify in the oral examination. The allegations of illegality and arbitrariness made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition are not substantiated by any materials on record. In any case, such allegations have been categorically denied in the affidavit-in-opposition.

9. Though the petitioner had tried to make out a case by citing 7 roll numbers with the allegation that those persons did not appear in the oral interview, such allegation has been categorically denied in the affidavit-in-opposit