WP(C) 3164/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr Ghos h, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that though he is eligible to be appointed as a Computer Assistant in terms of the advertisement that had been issued for the purpose under the provisions of the National Rural Employment G uarantee Act,2005( for short NRGA’). The Respondent No.5, who does not belong to Baladmari Char G.P. and in fact is a resident of Ward No.6 of Goalpara town has been preferred to him. The written instructions furnished to Mr Ghosh reveal that for appointme nt amongst others to the post of Computer Assistant on contract basis, the Block wise Sub-Committee recommended the candidates in terms of the marks secured b y them along with their GP wise placement and on the basis of the said recommend ation, the Respondent No.5 was appointed for the period from 1.7.2009 to 31.8. 2009. Noticeably, the basis of the petitioner’s challenge appears to be that he being a resident of Baladmari GP has preferential claim which has been overlo oked. The writ petition does not disclose any statement to this effect. Coupl ed with the above omission, on a reading of the written instructions so furnishe d to the learned State counsel which reveal that the period of contract o the Re spondent No.5 has expired on 31.8.2009, this Court is of the view that this pe tition lacks in substance and is liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. No costs.