WP(C) 5256/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Amitava Roy, J Heard Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Bhattach erjee, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, G auhati High Court. Mr. R.K. Adhikary, learned State counsel is also heard. Considering the relief prayed for and on a scrutiny of the facts bearing thereon , we consider it inessential to issue formal notice and the instant petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she was initially appointe d as Copyist in the establishment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tin sukia with effect from 06.10.1998. She has been discharging her duties without any blemish since then till date. Meanwhile, she has submitted representations for regularization of her services. A selection process has been initiated vis- à-vis to regular the post of Copyist in the establishment of Sub-Divisional Judi cial Magistrate, Margherita and she has participated therein. The interview in connection therewith is over in which she has appeared as well. She is before t his Court praying for an appropriate writ and/or direction for regularization of her service against one of the posts involved in the selection. Mr. Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel while reiterating the above has drawn the at tention of this Court to the order dated 28.02.2011 passed in WP(C) No.6925/2010 instituted by another Copyist of the same establishment situated equally like h er. The petitioner therein has also participated in the same selection process and has appeared in the interview as well. The learned Senior counsel has urged that the present petition may be disposed of with a similar observation as made in the order dated 28.02.2011. The learned counsel for the respondents have no t offered any response resisting this plea. This Court by order dated 28.02.2011 had disposed of the aforementioned writ pet ition of Ms. Wahida Begum, who is also a Copyist of the establishment of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita leaving her at liberty to participa te in the selection aforementioned if she satisfies the conditions of eligibilit y prescribed for the post involved by the Rules. An observation was made that w hile assessing the comparative suitability of the candidates participating in th e exercise if the concerned authority consider it appropriate, due weightage to her past services be extended. Mr. Chaliha has submitted that in view of the above observation, the petitioner herein being otherwise equally placed would suffer a disadvantage if a similar b enefit is not accorded to her. The observation made hereinabove, we make it clear was not a direction to the au thority conducting the selection to extend due weightage to the petitioner in WP (C) No.6925/2010 for her past services and it was left at liberty to extend such weightage if deemed fit and proper. This Court did not intend either that such weightage if granted would be a factor to the exclusion of the other competing c andidates. Be that as it may, as such observation has been made by this Court as above, vis -à-vis one of the incumbents in a similar establishment vying for the same post, we are of the view that the petitioner herein as well should not be denied the same to strike the balance between the two candidates. It is thus observed that while assessing the comparative suitability of the candidates participating in the process, if the concerned authority administering the same considers it appr opriate, it would accord due weightage to the past services of the petitioner if she is otherwise eligible for the post. We make it clear that the observations as above made in WP(C) No.6925/2010 as we ll as herein would be limited to the present selection and should not be constru ed to be a direction to the authority conducting the selection process to grant such weightage. To reiterate, we leave it open to such authority to take a decis ion in this regard depending on the institutional exigencies and bearing in mind the aspect of fairness and transparency in the selection undertaken. Further, these observations in the aforementioned cases would not apply as a precedent in future. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.