The present petition has been preferred against non-selection of the petitioner by the respondents on the post of Personal Assistant in the Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Personal Assistant, in pursuance of Public Advertisement, dated 28th November, 2005 (Annexure-1). There after, the respondents took written test in which the petitioner appeared and thereafter, the petitioner was not called for Personal Interview and seven persons have been appointed on the Post of Personal Assistant. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that several times. certain informations were sought for, about the selection of the petitioner, but, nothing was supplied and, therefore, an application was preferred under. the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby, the petitioner came to know that he has acquired 27 marks in the Written Test and the respondents have called for the Interview" the candidates having minimum 38 marks.

3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that assessment, made by the respondents that petitioner is also required to be reassessed. Marks, given to the petitioner are much lesser. Even the result of the written examination has not been published by the respondents and, therefore, the whole selection process for the Post of Personal Assistant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has secured much lesser marks in the Written Test i.e. only 27 marks and the respondents have called for the Interview, the candidates who has secured minimum 38 marks. Thus, the petitioner is not even qualified for the Interview and, therefore, he has not been selected for the Post of Personal Assistant. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that the marks given in the Written Test to the petitioner cannot be reassessed by this Court, in exercise of powers, vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because it is the subjective satisfaction of the examiner and lastly. it is submitted that those who have been selected as Personal Assistant, they have all been appointed on the said post and they are working as Personal Assistant, as on today and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:-

(i) the petitioner has applied for the post of Personal Assistant, in pursuance of Public Advertisement, dated 28th November, 2005, (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition) in the Vidhan Sabha, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Written Test was taken from all the candidates, wherein, the petitioner has secured 27 marks only.

(ii) it also appears from the counter affidavit that the respondents have called for Personal Interview to certain ,candidates and cut off marks is 38 and, therefore, the petitioner is not even qualified for the Interview and after Interview, some of the candidates were selected. Thus, those who have cleared Written Test as well as Interview have been selected for the Post of Personal Assistant, Vidhan Sabha, Ranchi and as the petitioner could not secure 38 marks, the petitioner has not been called for even Interview.

(iii) it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the method of assessment of the petitioner's written examination is absolutely arbitrary. Counsel has argued out the case, in detail, stating as to how many marks are to be deducted for how many mistakes and whether the mistakes committed by the petitioner in dictation and marks deducted for every mistake is correct or not?

(iv) be that as it may, this Court is not going to reassess the written test paper- of the present petitioner. The petitioner has already been given by the examiner as 27 marks. It is subjective satisfaction of the ex