15. The advertisement clearly stipulated the dates, time and venue of the “walk-in-interview” which have been stated above. Though the vacancies were notified to be 35, there was a clear stipulation that the numbers of post was likely to increase or decrease. The total number of appointment made is 56 and the contention that no merit list is prepared is belied by the document annexed in these proceedings containing 56 roll numbers of the selected candidates. The learned Standing Counsel has also highlighted the aspect as to how the oral tests were held and marks were allotted on different aspect, such as General Knowledge, IQ and Personality. The marks allotted are also available in the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel. What is more intriguing is the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel supported by the attendance sheet that the petitioners had, in fact participated in the said “walkin-interview”. There is an admission in the petitions regarding submission of their candidatures. However, the non-disclosure of the fact that the petitioners had participated in the interview amounts to suppression of material facts. In any case, the challenge which is structured on the grounds mentioned above does not appear to be substantiated by the materials available on record. The case laws cited on behalf of the petitioners would not come to their aid as this Court has noticed that a merit list was, indeed prepared based on which, the appointments have been made. The aspect of filling up of more posts than
