WP(C) 7289/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) 1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and having rega rd to the subject matter involved, final orders are being passed in both the wri t petitions which are inter-connected. 2. The facts involved in the writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7102/2005 may be noticed first. By a communication dated 14th of July 2005 (Annexure-A to the writ petit ion) issued by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education the Principals of the A rabic Colleges/Title Madrassas (provincialised) and the Superintendents of provi ncialised Senior Madrassas were informed of the Government decision to allow the vacant posts in the said institutions to be filled up in accordance with the pr ovisions of the Assam Madrassa Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1995. By the c ommunication dated 14th of July 2005 the head of the institutions were required to submit draft advertisements and proposals for constitution of the selection b oard in accordance with the provisions of the Act for due approval of the Deputy Director. Pursuant thereto the Managing Committee of the Katarihara Senior Madr assa (petitioners claim to be members of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid Madrassa) finalized the draft advertisement for filling up six vacant posts in the Madrassa and also resolved the draft constitution of the selection Board. Th is was on 26.7.2005. The same was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Madrassa E ducation who accorded permission for publication of the advertisement for the va cant posts. An advertisement was accordingly published in a newspaper Natun Din on 18th of August 2005. According to the petitioners, a large number of candid ates had applied and were pressing the Managing Committee for fixing a date for holding of interviews. However, as the approval to the constitution of the selec tion board was not forthcoming from the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, s elections/interviews could not be held. In these circumstances WP(C) No.7102/200 5 was filed seeking interference of the Court. While the writ petition was pend ing, an order dated 11th of November 2005 was passed by the Deputy Director of M adrassa Education canceling the advertisement dated 18.8.2005 on the grounds and reasons recorded in the said order. A direction for publication of a fresh adve rtisement with the condition that candidates who had earlier applied need not ap ply again was also issued by the Deputy Director. 3. The aforesaid order dated 11.11.2005 of the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education was brought on record by the petitioner by filing Misc. Case No.3986/2 005 wherein the specific prayer made was for stay of the said order. By order da ted 16.8.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.3986/2005 this Court directed that notwith standing the cancellation of the advertisement dated 18.8.2005 the posts in ques tion shall not be re-advertised. From the above it would, therefore, be clear th at though the cancellation order dated 11.11.2005 has not been specifically chal lenged in the writ petition the said order is a part of the record of the writ p etition and cognizance has been taken by the Court of the said order. In such ci rcumstances on account of the subsequent facts that had occurred the Court would be required to deal with the validity of the cancellation made by the order dat ed 11.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education. 4. The connected writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.7289/2005 has been filed by so me eligible candidates challenging the legality and validity of the advertisemen t dated 18.8.2005 which had been cancelled by the subsequent order of the Deputy Director dated 11.11.2005. 5. I have heard Sri H. A. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No.7102/2005 and Mr. A.F.N.U. Mollah, learned counsels for the petitioners i n WP(C) No.7289/2005. I have also heard Sri U. K. Goswami, learned Standing Cou nsel, Education appearing for the official respondents in both the cases as well as Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in WP(C) No. 7102/2005. 6. A reading of the order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education canceling the advertisement dated 18.8.2005 indicates that a fter the advertisement dated 18.8.2005 was issued, several public complaints wer e received with regard to the publication of the said advertisement and also the conduct and actions of the in-charge Superintendent of the Madrassa in question , particularly, in refusing to accept applications of some eligible candidates a s well as acceptance of the applications of other candidates in a secret and vei led manner. It appears from the order dated 11.11.2005 that the said allegations /complaints were enquired into by examining the in-charge Superintendent who vir tually acknowledged the allegations levelled against him. In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education had thought it proper to cancel the a dvertisement dated 18.8.2005 and direct a fresh advertisement to be issued, howe ver, with the stipulation that candidates who had earlier applied need not apply again. 7. The facts stated above would go to show that the cancellation made by th e Deputy Director by the order dated 11.11.2005 had been promoted by good and su fficient reasons. If the advertisement was not widely circulated and the applica tions of eligible candidates pursuant thereto were not received by the in-charge Superintendent of the Madrassa for reasons other than bonafide and at the same time some other applications of candidates were accepted in a questionable manne r, the decision of the Deputy Director to cancel the advertisement and go for a fresh process of recruitment cannot be faulted with. While doing so the Deputy D irector also took care to protect the interest of the persons who had already ap plied pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.8.2005, by requiring the fresh adve rtisement to incorporate the condition that candidates who had already applied n eed not apply again. The in-charge Superintendent of the Madrassa having virtual ly admitted omissions and lapses on his part, there was, really, no other option for the Deputy Director but to take the decision as contained in the order date d 11.11.2005. 8. That apart, nearly three years have rolled by in the meantime. Many pers ons who were not eligible in the year 2005 have now become eligible for the vaca nt posts in question. In such a situation the Court is inclined to take the view that publication of a fresh advertisement will be conducive to public interest as persons eligible as on date will have an opportunity to apply for the vacant posts. 9. For the aforesaid reasons the Court is of the view that no interference with the order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Educat ion will be justified. WP(C) No.7102 of 2005, therefore, is dismissed; whereas W P(C) No.7289 of 2005 will stand answered in terms of the above.