(1.) Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the private respondents.
(2.) The main grievance agitated in the present writ petition is that one Shilpi Sutradhar had faced an interview. She is 100% visually handicapped having obtained certificate for her co-curricular activities. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that minimum marks have been awarded in favour of the petitioner by the members of the interview board where maximum marks awarded in favour of other visually handicapped candidates despite the fact that they did not produce any certificate for any co-curricular activities. At para-22 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated thus:
(3.) This assertion of the petitioner has been confronted by Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. for the respondents-State and in respect of this contention he has drawn my attention to the statements the State-respondents have made in their counter affidavit at Para- 11, 12, 13, 14. For the purpose of reference, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: