WP(C) 4583/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, and Mr. M. R. Pathak, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, app earing on behalf of the respondents. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.05.2009, passed by the respondent No. 1 , namely, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Departmen t, holding the petitioners not entitled to receive salary, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking, with the help of the present writ petition made u nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents. The findings of the impugned order, dated 30.05.2009, read as under: & & & &It appears from the above-mentioned reports that the petitioners were app nted as stipendiary teachers in different LP Schools of Dhemaji District on 09.0 6.1995 by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhemaji (Shri J. Bora) against n on-existent posts. The petitioners were also not selected by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board, Dhemaji. They have not been allowed to draw salary as th ey were appointed against non-existent posts. This Court has perused the present writ petition and it does not find, i n the writ petition, as claimed or asserted by the writ petitioners, that they h ad come to be appointed following any regular selection process. Appointments i n public domain cannot be made without giving opportunity to all eligible person s to participate in the selection process for the purpose of making the appointm ent. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, when read together, mandat es the State to ensure that no appointment, in public domain, is made without ad hering to a selection process, which gives an opportunity to all eligible person s to participate in the selection process. In the case at hand, the petitioners , in terms of the relevant policy, ought to have been selected by the Sub-Divisi on Level Advisory Board, Dhemaji. But the petitioners were not selected by the said Board. This apart, the petitioners were not, as a matter of fact, selected by following any selection process. In such circumstances, the question as to whether any sanctioned vacant post existed at the relevant point of time, is imm aterial. The appointment of the writ petitioners, being wholly illegal and gros sly in violation of the guarantees given by Article 14 and 16, would not entitle the petitioners to receive salary in the manner as the petitioners have been cl aiming. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find that the petit ioners have been able to make out any case warranting interference with the impu gned order, dated 30.05.2009, in exercise of this Court’s power under Article 22 6 of the Constitution of India. As the order, dated 30.05.2009, cannot be inter fered with, the consequential letters, dated 11.06.2009 and 20.06.2009, which ha ve also been impugned in this writ petition, can not been interfered with too. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition i s not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. However, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners’ present writ pet ition has been dismissed, the petitioners shall remain at liberty to take recour se to such provisions of law, as may be permissible. Before parting with this writ petition, it is placed on record that it h as been submitted by Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, at the end of the order, that the Government may be directed to condone the age of the petitioners so that the petitioners can participate in any regular selec tion process. This is an aspect, which is required to be considered and decided by the State Government as a matter of policy, and the matter is, therefore, le ft entirely to the judicious discretion of the State Government. No order as to costs.