WP(C) 4320/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. K. Deka, learned c ounsel appearing for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. P. Chokraborty, lear ned Standing counsel, SWD and Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioners in which t hey have claimed for a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Statistic al Assistant pursuant to their selection. While in W.P.(C) No. 4320/2006 the pra yer of the petitioners is for such direction, in W.P.(C) NO. 3833/2008 in additi on to the said prayer, they have also prayed for setting aside and quashing of A nnexure-5 order dated 11.08.2008 by which three Statistical Assistant had been transferred from Golaghat to Dhubri District. The petitioners are selected candidates for appointment as Statistical Assistant and their merit positions are at serial No. 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. It is on recor d that 12 (twelve) vacancies had been notified and thus, it is the claim of the petitioner that they being within the zone of consideration, they are entitled to appointment. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the Directorate of Social Welfare vide letter dated 27.01.2006 had clarified that a lthough 12 (twelve) vacancies had been notified, but only 6 (six) can be filled up. Accordingly, 6 (six) vacancies have been filled up on the basis of the merit position in the select list. In paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, it has b een stated that out of 6 (six) posts, 4 (four) were filled up by transferring th e serving incumbents and the remaining 2 (two) from the amongst the selected can didates on the basis of their merit. As regards to transfer of 4 (four) incumben ts, same is said to be as per order of this Court dated 01.09.2006 passed in W.P .(C) No. 4320/2006. The respondents have also referred to order dated 21.07.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3429/2006. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed by Jayanta Kr. Kalita, working as PO-II in the Directorate of Social Welfare Department, it has been stated that the arrangement relating to transfer had to be made on the basis of the said ord er dated 21.07.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3429/2006. Nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit as to what prompted to Govt./ D irectorate to take a decision not to fill up 6 (six) posts out of 12 (twelve) va cancies. The arrangement for transferring certain incumbents to fill up certain posts out of the remaining 6 (six) vacancies was pursuant to an interim order pa ssed by this Court on 21.07.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 3429/2006. There was no directio n as such to transfer the particular incumbents to Dhubri from Golaghat. Leaned counsel for the parties are not aware as to the outcome of the said writ petitio n. The grievance of the petitioners is that since they have participated in the se lection for 12 (twelve) vacancies, later on the respondents could not have withd rawn 6 (six) posts on the ground of the decision of the Directorate. Mr. Chou dhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that such decision must be in formed of reasons. He submits that the petitioners having participated in the se lection and they being successful in the same occupying merit positions within t he zone of consideration, the respondents could not have denied them appointment with untenable pleas. The aforesaid grievance of the petitioners requires appropriate attention of the authorities. In absence of any disclosure made by the respondents as to the nec essity of withdrawing 6 (six) posts and transfer of 4 (four) incumbents to Dhubr i district, it is not possible for this Court to resolve the issue. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Commission er and Secretary, Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department to take on rec ord the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate order in consultation with the relevant records. Let the entire exercise shall be carried out on or be fore 31.08.2011. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. However, no adverse order shall be passed against the private respondents without affording them the opportunity of being heard.