WP(C) 4951/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AK GOSWAMI Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Goswami , learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. SK Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. The instant writ petitioner has been filed with the following pr ayers : i) Quashing all such illegal appointments made in the form o f adjustment without following any selection process; -AND- ii) Directing the Respondent authorities to issue advertisement for fresh selection of candidates including the petitioner on the basis of meri t. -AND- iii) Initiating proceedings against the Respondents and stringe nt action be taken against those found guilty. -AND- iv) Directing the Respondent authorities to compensate the pe titioner adequately; -AND- v) Upon cause/cause being shown and upon perusal of records a nd hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such oth er order or further order/orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper . In view of very restricted and limited submission advanced by M r. PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, it may not be necessary to narra te in detail the factual matrix of the case on which the writ petition has been structured. Suffice it is to say that to substantiate the grant of prayer made in respect of prayer No.(i), the writ petitioner has cited the instances of alle ged irregular appointments offered to the respondents No.5 and 6 of the instant writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, attempts hav e been made for making appointment without resorting to selection process in ter ms of the extant Rules. Mr. Deka submits that according to the instructions received by him, the writ petitioner would be content if a direction is issued from this cou rt to the respondent authorities to initiate recruitment process by issuing nece ssary advertisement for recruitment to the post of Hindi teacher in the High Sch ools. He also submits that the petitioner may also be granted relaxation of age, if such relaxation is necessary, in order to enable him to take part in the se lection process. So far as first part of the prayer of the petitioner is concerned, it is only t o be re-stated that for recruitment to public posts, issuance of advertisement i s imperative and, therefore, in the event the State contemplates to recruit Hind i Teachers, the State must issue an advertisement in accordance with law and pr oceed to complete the process in terms of the extant Rules. However, there cann ot be any direction to compel the State to undertake a recruitment process, in t he facts and circumstances of the case, as it is totally within the domain of th e State to decide when to fill up the vacancies available. So far as second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the lear ned Standing Counsel, Education Department, fairly submits that in the event any advertisement is issued and if the petitioner offers his candidature pursuant to such advertisement, the State authorities would consider relaxation of age in respect of the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dispos ed of.