WP(C) 3812/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY These writ petitions have been filed by 27 persons, whose names appeared in the 2nd list dated 24.12.2007 prepared and published by the Director of Land Records and Surveys etc., Assam, selecting 160 candidates for undergoing 6(six) months Recorders’ Certificate Class Course (RCCC) training, scheduled to be hel d w.e.f. 01.07.2008, challenging the communication dated 29.10.2009 issued by th e Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam to the Director of Land Records and Surv eys etc., Assam refusing to approve the select list prepared by the Director for admission into the said course in 2nd, 3rd and 4th batch; the order dated 25.02 .2010 passed by the Director rejecting the representation filed by the petitione rs praying for sending them for such training pursuant to the aforesaid selectio n and the select list prepared and order dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Principa l Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department re jecting the similar prayer of the petitioners, upon consideration of the represe ntation as directed vide order dated 29.01.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3963/2009, fo r admitting them in such training course. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petit ions are that an advertisement dated 04.11.2006 was issued by the Director of La nd Records and Surveys etc., Assam inviting applications from the intending cand idates for selection for admission against 160 seats at Assam Survey and Settlem ent Training Institute to undergo the aforesaid 6(six) months training for the y ear 2006, pursuant to which the petitioners along with other candidates numberin g about 12000 submitted their applications. A written test thereafter was conduc ted and a decision was taken that the persons securing 40% of marks in such writ ten test would be qualified for the viva-voce test. Since a large number of cand idates secured more than 40% marks, the respondent authorities decided to call 5 60 candidates for viva-voce test, which decision was put to challenge by certain candidates, who were not called for viva-voce test, in WP(C) No.3419/2007 prayi ng for a direction to the respondent authorities to invite them for the viva-voc e test, on the plea that they have secured the cut off marks. The said writ peti tion, however, was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2007 by upholding the decisi on of the respondent authorities to call 560 candidates for viva-voce test. The said order though was put to challenge in Writ Appeal No.413/2007, the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2007 by affirming the judgmen t and order dated 20.08.2007 passed in WP(C) No.3419/2007. The Director of Land Records and Surveys etc. thereafter prepared and published the select list conta ining 160 candidates, on 20.12.2007, and accordingly those 160 candidates were s ent for the aforesaid 6(six) months training. 3. The Director, however, on 24.12.2007 published another list containing t he names of 160 candidates, which includes the names of the writ petitioners. Tw o further lists being 3rd and 4th list were also published by the Director on 26 .12.2007 containing the names of all other candidates who were called for the vi va-voce test. A writ petition being WP(C) No.2117/2008 was thereafter filed by c ertain unsuccessful candidates challenging the publication of the 2nd, 3rd and 4 th list on 24.12.2007 and 26.12.2007, wherein though initially an interim order was passed, the said writ petition, however, was subsequently dismissed as not p ressed vide order dated 16.03.2009. The writ petitioners thereafter filed an app lication before the Director praying for allowing them to undergo said 6(six) mo nths training course pursuant to the selection and as their names appeared in th e 2nd list prepared on 24.12.2007. The representations of the petitioners were, thereafter, forwarded to the Govt. of Assam in Revenue and Disaster Management D epartment and though the said department asked for certain clarification/informa tion from the Director, no final decision was immediately taken. The Joint Direc tor eventually vide communication dated 29.10.2010 informed the Director about t he Government’s inability to approve the aforesaid 2nd, 3rd and 4th list prepare d by him, which communication, as noticed above, is also under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed WP(C) No.3963/2009 praying for a dire ction to the respondent authorities to send them for the aforesaid 6(six) months training, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2010 directing the respo ndent authorities to consider and dispose of the representations filed by them. The Director vide order dated 25.02.2010 rejected the representations of the pet itioners. The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Ma nagement Department also vide order dated 06.05.2010 rejected the contention of the petitioners and hence the present writ petitions. 5. I have heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.3812/2010 and Mr. M.J. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) N o.2279/2010. I have also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned standing counsel, Director of Land Records apart from Mr. Sen Deka, learned State counsel appearing for the other respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the 2nd list dated 24.12.2007 has contended that since such list has been prepared by the Director selecting 160 candidates for undergoing such 6(six) months training course and a s Rule 15 of the Rules for Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre empowers the Director to run a second course during the same year, if there is pressing d emand, provided the whether permits, there is no reason as to why the petitioner s whose names appear in the 2nd list of 160 candidates should not be sent for un dergoing such training, after the training, of the first batch of 160 candidates selected vide 1st list dated 20.12.2007, is over. Referring to the communicatio ns issued by the Director on 08.04.2009 and 27.05.2009 (Annexure-J and M in WP(C ) No.2279/2010), it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner s that from contents of the said communications it is evident that the Director took a decision regarding running of 2nd batch training in the year 2006 pursuan t to the advertisement dated 04.11.2006 and as such there is no reason as to why the petitioners should not be admitted for undergoing such training in the 2nd batch, though 160 seats were advertised in the advertisement dated 04.11.2006. T he learned counsel, therefore, submits that the necessary direction may be issue d to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners and other similarly pla ced persons whose names appear in the 2nd list dated 24.12.2007 to undergo 6(six ) months training. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel, DLR, on the other hand, referring t o the advertisement dated 04.11.2006 has submitted that since the number of seat s advertised were only 160 and on that basis 560 candidates were called for the viva-voce test, there cannot be any admission beyond 160 seats, even if, the Dir ector took a decision for running a second course in the same year. It has also been submitted that even for running a second batch in the same year, the same p rocedure for issuing the advertisement is to be followed, which has not been don e. The learned standing counsel referring to the impugned communication dated 29 .10.2009 further submits that the request of the Director for approval of 2nd, 3 rd and 4th list has been rejected by the Government in Revenue and Disaster Mana gement Department, which is evident from the aforesaid communication issued by t he Joint Secretary. The learned counsel has also referred to the direction issue d by this Court dated 19.02.2004 passed in WP(C) No.7504/2002, whereby it has be en directed that the authority while issuing the advertisement must specify the number of seats available and shall not admit candidates beyond the number of se ats advertised. Mr. Sarma, therefore, submits that in any case, the Director can not admit any candidate beyond 160 seats, more so, when all the 160 candidates s elected by the 1st list dated 20.12.2007 have joined the course and undergone th e training course. 8. Mr. Sen Deka, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 a nd 2 has also submitted that since pursuant to the directions contained in the o rder dated 19.02.2004 passed in WP(C) No.7504/2002 the advertisement was issued and number of seats has been notified, there cannot be any admission of candidat es beyond 160. 9. The facts narrated above, are not in dispute. By advertisement dated 04. 11.2006 applications were called from the intending candidates for selection for undergoing 6(six) months training. In the said advertisement 160 seats were not ified. Rule 15 of the Rules for Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, whi ch are not the statutory Rules, provides that the course will normally last for 6(six) months and will preferably commence in the month of January every year or at any other date where necessary. It also provides that the duration of the co urse may be slightly reduced if there is pressing demand for qualified recorders from requiring authorities. The said rule also provides that there will be in e very year, one such course to which pupils should be admitted according to the a vailability of the seats. A discretion, however, has been granted to the Directo r of Land Records and Surveys to run a second course during the same year if the re is pressing demand, provided whether permits. 10. Rule 20 of the said Rules provides that for admission into each course, the Director will invite application from intending candidates preferably by the middle of June each year and before final selection is made for admission of th e course, the Director will obtain a statement from each district in regard to t he vacancy position. As noticed above, the advertisement was issued in respect o f 160 seats for undergoing training in the relevant year. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Director had in fact exercise the discretion of running a second course in the said year, though it is the contention of the petitioner s that vide communications dated 08.04.2009 and 25.07.2009, the Director’s decis ion to run a second course can be inferred. Such contention cannot be accepted a s approval sought for by the Director by the aforesaid communications dated 08.0 4.2009 and 25.07.2009 has been refused by Government in Revenue and Disaster Man agement Department, which is reflected in the communication dated 29.10.2009. 11. In the earlier writ proceeding filed by some other writ petitioners, i.e . WP(C) No.7504/2002 an order was passed on 19.02.2004 directing the authorities to issue advertisement specifying the number of seats available for training an d also directing the respondent authorities not to admit any candidate beyond th e numbers specified in the advertisement. That apart since 160 seats were advert ised vide notice dated 04.11.2006, even if the Director had exercise the discret ion for running a second batch in the same year, a further advertisement is requ ired to be issued for selecting the next batch of candidates, pursuant to Rule 2 0 of the aforesaid Rules. It is also evident from the judgment and order dated 2 9.01.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3963/2009 as well as the order dated 01.12.2007 pas sed in Writ Appeal No.413/2007 that 560 candidates were called for viva-voce tes t based on number of seats advertised i.e. 160 and in the event any candidate ot her than 160, whose names appeared in the 1st list dated 20.12.2007 and who were admitted in the course, are allowed to undergo such 6(six) months training purs uant to 2nd, 3rd and 4th list prepared by the Director, it would amount to depri ving the other candidates qualified in the written test but were not called for the viva-voce test because of the decision of the Government to limit the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test from out of the qualified candida tes in the written test. Moreover, by that time some other candidates must have acquired the required qualifications and eligible to apply for selection to unde rgo such training. In the event, all the 560 candidates who appeared in the viva -voce test are allowed to join the said course pursuant to 2nd, 3rd and 4th list prepared and published by the Director, it would amount to depriving such candi dates from participating in the process. It also appears that another advertisem ent was issued on 17th May, 2010, on the basis of which in total 406 candidates were selected for undergoing training, the first batch of which joined their tra ining course on 1st March, 2011. 12. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the present writ pet itions and hence the same are dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties are directed to bear their own cost.