WP(C) 4983/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr . A. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. I have also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. The petitioners, who are the aspirants for the post of LDA-cum-Typist in the Social Welfare Department, filed the instant writ petition alleging superse ssion of merit position in the matter of appointment. In this connection, the pe titioners have made the following statement in paragraphs 4 & 6 of the writ peti tion. 4. That the petitioners beg to state that in pursuance to the said call let ters the petitioners appeared the interviews along with other candidates and per formed to their fullest satisfaction. Thereafter the petitioners came to know th at a select list dated 11.11.2005 has been published in the DAINIK JANAMBHUMI, a n Assamese Daily in its issue dated 16.11.2005 wherein the petitioners’ names ha ve also found places in the top most positions as per merit. However, the petiti oners respectfully state that in the said select list they will occupy a few pos itions above the present positions if the list is rescheduled as per reservation s in respect of backward communities. 6. That the petitioners humbly state that in the meantime they have also co me to know that a number of selected candidates have already been appointed, a m ajor portion of whom (including the aforesaid Respondent No.5 is occupying posit ion in the select list dated 11.11.2005 which are much below to those of the pre sent writ petitioners in order of merit / preference and / or roster points. Als o, a few unselected persons ad/or the persons who did not take part in the selec tion process at all have been give appointments under the Respondents concerned s LDA cum typist. The merit list in question has been annexed as Annexure-G to the writ pe tition. The select list was published vide notification dated 11.11.2005 in orde r of merit and district wise. The select list contained the Roll Nos. in order o f merit. Although, the petitioners have not indicated their positions in the mer it list but have claimed that they have been superseded by the respondent No.5 a nd some other s but Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has drawn my attention to the Annexure- E & F call letters dated 22.1.2005 pertaining to b oth the petitioners. The said two letters bear the No. DSWO(S) 425/2005/73 and 2 30 respectively. According to the Mr. Dhar, the said two last figures i.e. 73 an d 230 indicate the respective Roll Nos. of the candidates. The aforesaid two Roll Nos. 73 & 230 find place in the select list perta ining to Sibsgar District and if the said two numbers are taken into account in order of merit, the merit positions of the petitioners are at Sl. No. 11 and 26. As against the said merit positions of the petitioners, the respondent No.5 bea ring Roll No. 7 occupied merit position at Sl. No.6. As regards the plea of the petitioners that they being the reserved cate gory candidates (OBC), their merit positions would have been higher in the merit list, had the select list be prepared adhering the reservation policy, suffice is to say that when the petitioners themselves are unable to disclose their mer it positions and also about their positions, had the reservation policy has been followed, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot make a roving enquiry and also when none of the selected candidates except the respondent No.5 is the party respondent in this proceeding. Above being the position, it cannot be said that the respondent No.5 sup erseded the petitioners in order of merit towards getting the appointment. Apart from the above omnibus statement of the petitioners that some othe r candidates whose merit positions were below the petitioners and even the unsel ected candidates were appointed, cannot be gone into in absence of any material particulars, and more so, when the said persons are not party respondents to the present proceeding. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and ac cordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.