WP(C) 13/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner claims the benefit of appointment under Notification dated 23rd J uly, 1999 (Annexure-4) providing 10% quota in vacancies in L.P. Schools, for the wards of L.P. School teachers. The petitioner’s father retired on 31.5.1995 and it is contended that notwithsta nding the direction given by the court earlier on 29.11.2002 in WP(C) No.7581/20 02, the authorities have not considered his case for appointment against the 10% quota of available vacancies. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Deptt, however, refers to a Div ision Bench decision of this court in Shahejul Hussain Saikia vs. State of Assam & Ors , reported in 2005 (2) GLT 241 to contend that for being considered for a ppointment against such quota vacancies, the candidate must go through a selecti on process and since the petitioner has not indicated as to whether he had parti cipated in the selection process for appointment of teachers advertised after th e court’s order in his earlier writ petition, no direction for considering his c ase can be ordered by the court. I have seen the ratio of the decision of this court in Shahejul Hussain Saikia ( supra) which lays down that the candidates applying for 10% quota vacancies unde r Notification 23rd July, 1999 (Annexure-4) must go through selection as assessm ent is a sine-qua-non, to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for appointmen t as a school teacher. As the petitioner does not appear to have participated in any such selection process, I do not see any reason to give a direction to cons ider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of L.P. School teacher agains t the quota vacancy. The writ petition is accordingly found to be devoid of merit and the same is dis missed.