MC 1432/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AK GOSWAMI Contending that the interview of the candidates for filling up six vacant posts of Gr. IV under the Director of Dairy Development, was a farce and an eye wash, one of the candidates participating in the recruitment process, filed WP (C) No. 2010/10. On 26.3.10, while directing that the matter be listed on 5.4.10, the c ourt observed that if any appointment is made to the posts of Gr. IV in the mean time, the same shall be subject to the further orders to be passed on 5.4.10. Th e matter was, thereafter, taken up for consideration on 6.4.10 and this court, w hile issuing Notice of Motion, passed an interim order to the effect that the re spondents shall not without the leave of this court, fill up the posts of Gr. IV pursuant to the advertisement published on 10.03.10 which forms the subject ma tter of controversy. The Director of Diary Development, respondent No.2 in the w rit petition has filed an application for vacation/modification of the order dat ed 6.4.10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire selection process from the very beginning to the last is vitiated and there was undue haste in going ahead with the recruitment process. There was no proper pub lication with regard to the date of interview and it was due to a stroke of luck that the petitioner could participate in the interview when he made a chance v isit to the office of the respondent No.2 to make enquiries. It is his submissio n that the process of selection adopted by the selection committee is not in co nsonance with the fair process of recruitment and as such the learned counsel pr ays that the application filed by the respondent No.2 seeking vacation of the in terim order is liable to be rejected. Mr. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/applicant, submits that be fore the order dated 6.4.10 was passed, the appointment letters had been issued to the successful candidates on 31.3.10 and the appointees had already joined be fore the interim order was communicated to the applicant/respondent No 2 on 7.4. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/responde nt No.2 that the writ petitioner had applied only for the post of Chowkidar for which three posts were earmarked. Apart from the post of Chowkidar, there were p osts for Peon, Chilling Plant Attendant and Boiler Khalashi-one each for each of them. It is also submitted that the appointees have not been made parties to th e proceedings. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is submitted that the in terim order is liable to be vacated. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials on record. It would appear that before the interim order dated 6.4 .10 was passed, the appointment orders had already been issued. Further more, it is the stand of the respondent No.2/applicant that the fresh appointees had al ready joined by the time the interim order was communicated to the respondent N o.2/applicant. In the aforesaid view of the matter, without expressing any opin ion on the merit of the case at this stage, I am of the opinion that the interi m order is liable to be vacated. It is ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that notwithstanding the vacation of th e interim order, the appointments made pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.3. 10, be made subject to the result of the writ petition. Considering the prayer, the appointments made in the grade IV posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.3.10 are made subject to the outcome of the writ app lication. Misc. Case stands disposed of.