WP(C) 1706/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. R De, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. S Seal, lea rned Standing Counsel, Excise Department, appearing on behalf of respondents. The petitioners herein, who are five in number, have assailed the select ion initiated for the purpose of filling up of 98 posts of Excise Constable in t he Department of Excise, Government of Assam. For filling up 98 posts of Excise Constable, Employment Exchanges of Ass am were requested to sponsor names of eligible candidates and the intending cand idates were also asked to contact their respective local Employment Exchanges. P ursuant thereto, petitioners’ names were forwarded by the respective local Emplo yment Exchanges and they were all called to appear in physical and medical test. The petitioners accordingly appeared in the test and, on their having qualified in the said test, a Select List was published on 29-12-2010. Independent call l etters were issued to the selected candidates requiring them to appear in viva v oce test. All the petitioners accordingly appeared in the viva voce test. The petitioners, now, claim that they faired well in the test, but in the final select list, which was published on 11-02-2011, the petitioners’ names did not f ind place. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the entire selection process on, essentially, the ground that persons, who were inferior i n merit to the petitioners, have been selected. Surprisingly enough, however, th e petitioners have not named those candidates, who had, according to the petitio ner, not fared as well as the petitioners claim to have done. Thus, the persons, who had not done, according to the petitioners, as well as the petitioners had done, have not been made parties to the writ petition. The petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the selection process without hav ing even indicated as to who are those persons, who had not faired well or had n ot faired as well as the petitioners and yet got selected. In fact, in similar c ircumstances, three writ petitions, namely, WP(C) Nos. 763/2011, 1145/2011 and 1 359/2011 were dismissed by order, dated 24-03-2011. The case of the present peti tioners stand on no better footing than the cases of the petitioners in the writ petitions, which have been dismissed as mentioned hereinbefore. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and the same shall accord ingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment and order, dated 24-03-2011, whereby the said three w rit petitions were dismissed, be kept with the record of this case. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondents. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of.