WP(C) 2567/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. D evi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned S tate Counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Gram Rojgar Sahayak under the scheme called National Rural Employment Guar antee Scheme (NREGA) in Hailakandi District. The only ground on which the challe nge has been made is that the respondent No. 4 does not belong to the jurisdicti onal Gaon Panchayat. According to the petitioner, while he belongs to Kalinagar Gaon Panchayat, the respondent No. 4 belongs to West Mohanpur Gaon Panchayat. In the advertisement (Annexure-A) there is no indication that the candidate must b e from the particular Gaon Panchayat, rather by the said advertisement informati on was furnished to the educated unemployed youths of Hialakandi district that i n different Gaon Panchayats, some temporary engagement would be made in respect of the posts indicated in the advertisement, one of which was Gram Rojgar Sahaya k. The petitioner has placed reliance on the minutes of the meeting of Selection Board for selection of candidates under DRDA, Hailakandi held on 1 9.2.2009. In the said minutes, it was observed that candidate from the same Gaon Panchayat should be given preference in all categories. Apart from the fact that there is nothing has been indicated tha t the aforesaid minutes of the meeting pertain to appointment in question, the i ndication in the said minutes that preference would be given to candidates from the same Gaon Panchayat does not mean appointment of candidate from the same Gao n Panchayat irrespective of his suitability for the said post. Apart from the above, the engagement is purely temporary in natu re. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 4 belongs to Hailakandi District . Merely because he is resident of another nearby Gaon Panchayat, it cannot be s aid that he is not eligible to participate in the selection. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petiti on and accordingly it is dismissed.