voce test compared to all other candidates including the petitioner that too without prescribing such type of marks prior to the advertisement or till such date the respondent Selection Board had learnt that the petitioner herein had secured high marks in the test so conducted by the District Transport Authority.

3. To ascertain the merits of the said challenge, it is relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. On 20.05.2022, the Chief Judicial Magistrate who is the respondent No.5 in the instant proceedings had issued an advertisement calling from intending eligible candidates for filling up of various posts. The subject matter of the instant writ petition pertains to the post of driver. In the said advertisement, the details in respect to the driver being relevant is reproduced herein under.

5. From the above quoted portion, it would be seen that the post in question was for an unreserved category candidate and the educational qualifications necessary was minimum Class-VIII standard and a candidate must hold valid Driving License to drive LMV/four wheeler vehicles for not less than 5 years. Clause-11 of the said advertisement further stipulated that those candidates applying for the post of Driver shall have to appear in a Driving Test to be conducted by the District Transport Authority, South Salmara, Mankachar and viva voce. Certain records were placed before this Court when this Court heard this matter on 01.05.2025 wherefrom it would be seen that a resolution was adopted on 18.11.2024 that the 60 marks would be allotted for viva voce. It is not out of place to mention that this resolution was adopted on 18.11.2024 after the District Transport Authority carrying out the assessment of the various candidates who applied for the post of the Driver had assessed the petitioner at 70 marks out of 100 and the respondent No.6 at 40 marks out of 100.

6. This Court enquired with the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court as to whether there was any resolution adopted prior or immediately after the issuance of the advertisement as to how the marks would be allocated towards the Driving Test as well as for viva voce. No such resolution was adopted is the submission so made by the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. The learned counsel further submitted that it was only on 18.11.2024 that a resolution was adopted to hold the viva voce test for 60 marks in view of the fact that the District Transport Authority had already assessed the various candidates for the post of the Driver upon 100 marks i.e. 30 marks for Traffic Signal Test and 70 marks for Driving Test.

7. Proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of that in terms with the resolution so adopted on 18.11.2024, the respondent No.6 was granted 55 marks out of 60 whereas the petitioner was granted only 20 marks. The records so produced today before this Court reveals that the Selection Board consisting of three members had given individual marks to the candidates out of 20 and the aggregate of the marks given by the three members was taken into consideration. The petitioner was given 20 marks by the three members out of 60 whereas the respondent No.6 was given 55 marks out of 60 and thereby the respondent No.6 marched ahead with 95 marks compared to the petitioner receiving 90 marks. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. This Court vide an order dated 11.12.2024 while issuing notice, this Court stayed the filling up of the post of the Driver and the interim order has been continued since then.

9. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition so filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, it was mentioned that 60 marks was fixed for viva voce which was distributed amongst the three members in 20 marks each and therefore there was no excessive mark allotted for viva voce. It was men