WP(C) 3591/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA Heard Mr.N.Haque learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.P.Cha kraborty learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also heard Mr.B.Sinha learned counsel for the private respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the appo intment of respondent Nos.5 to 19 as Supervisor pursuant to the select list publ ished on 11.11.05. Admittedly the merit positions obtained by the petitioners in the select list are below the merit positions obtained by the private responden ts except the petitioner No.3 vis-à-vis the respondent No.5. According to the pe titioners No.3 her merit position is at serial No. 41 and respondent No.5 is at serial No. 42 and thus the said respondent could not have been appointed ign oring the merit position of petitioner No.3. Another ground urged in the writ petition is that the private respondent s have not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange of the district. They being from outside the district, their candidature ought not to have been considered by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the aforesaid plea rai sed in the writ petition has been denied. According to said affidavit, the priva te respondents are residents of the district of Barpeta, which however, have bee n denied by the petitioners. In the advertisement there was no indication that the candidates will have to be from the district for which the appointments we re being made or that the candidates from other districts were not entitled to o ffer their candidatures. As regards the registration in Employment Exchange, apa rt from the fact that the private respondents were registered with the Employmen t Exchange of other district, their candidature could not have been rejected on the ground of non-registration with Employment Exchange in the district. It bei ng an open competition the eligible candidates were entitled to offer their cand idature in acceptance of which they were also invited for the selection. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in their selection. It is submi tted that an employment notice was also published. As regards the claim of the petitioner No.3, that the respondent No.5 co uld not have been appointed, her merit position being at serial No. 42, as again st serial No. 41 of the petitioner No. 3, it is not discernible as to on what co unt the said respondent No. 5 was appointed. The respondent No.5 has not respond ed to this proceeding. If the petitioner No.3 is still aggrieved in respect of a ppointment of respondent No.5 she may approach the respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Social Welfare by appropriate representation. In the event of making such re presentation the said Director shall pass a speaking order within one month from the date of receiving the representation. However, no adverse order shall be pa ssed against the respondent No.5 without hearing her. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.