WP(C) 1595/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. P . Chokraborty, learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department. This writ petition has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing of the selection process initiated pursuant to the employment notice dated 07.0 1.05 (Annexure-18). Further prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to make an open advertisement for filling up the post of Supe rvisor/LDA/Grade-IV employees. From the theme of the writ petition what can be gathered is that accord ing to the petitioners a process of selection initiated by the respondents by wa y of inviting candidatures through Employment Exchange is illegal and that there should have been open advertisement. The aforesaid grievance of the petitioners will have to be understood in the background of the earlier facts involved in earlier writ proceedings. When the contractual employments were made in the department, writ petitions were fil ed challenging the legality and validity of such appointment de hors the selecti on process. The writ petitions were all disposed of by judgment and order dated 11.01.05 in which monitoring of the selection process undertaken by this Court w as also highlighted. Interim orders were passed on 16.08.04 and 21.12.04 requiri ng the Govt. to complete the process of direct recruitment to the available post s within 15.02.2005 and with the effect from the said date to discontinue the c ontractual employment. While expressing a note of unhappiness in making contract ual appointments without following recruitment rules, this Court laid down the f ollowing parameters on the basis of which the direct recruitment to the aforesa id posts was to be made within the stipulated time. As to what was the stipulate d time, has been noted above which was 15.02.2005. The laid down parameters are as follows: 1) The Selection Committees at the District level, which are stated to have been constituted, will consist of a nominee of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deput y Commissioner of each District shall naturally be expected to nominate an offic er who would inspire confidence amongst the members of the public with regard to his fairness and impartiality. 2) The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department will nomi nate a similar officer of an appropriate rank to be included in the State Level Selection Body. 3) All cases of appointment will be scrutinized by the Secretary to the Governme nt of Assam in the Social Welfare Department with his own chosen team and therea fter only such persons who are found to be eligible shall be cleared for appoint ment. Pursuant to monitoring of the cases and the orders passed from time to t ime, Annexure-18 employment notice dated 07.01.05 was issued inviting candidatur es from the Employment Exchange for the aforesaid posts. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners were unaware of the said notice so as to offer their candi datures. In fact, it is the petitioners who have annexed the said employment not ice to the writ petition. The writ petition is structured in the form of general statement regardi ng violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of issuance of employment notice, right of participation in the selection, procedur e adopted in the matter of selection process etc. However, no concrete materials have been placed which would go to show that because of such process the three petitioners had been deprived to participate in the selection process. This cour t is not dealing with the writ petition in the form of PIL. The general statem ents regarding alleged impropriety in the selection process does not lead us any where. It is not the case of the petitioners that because of the particular proc ess initiated they were deprived to participation in the selection process. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner made a very strange submission that had the Anenxure -18 employment notice been known to this Court, the aforementioned judgment and order dated 11.01.05 would not have been passed by this Court. He submits that when the said judgment and order dated 11.01.05 was passed, the petitioners did not have knowledge about the said employment notice. The petitioners have blamed the respondents in not placing the said employment notice before this Court whe n the judgment and order dated 11.01.05 was passed. As to what would have been the result after consideration of the said em ployment notice dated 07.01.05 before the judgment and order dated 11.01.05 was passed, is beyond the purview of this Court. If the petitioners were of the opin ion that the said employment notice dated 07.01.05 would have made a difference to the said judgment and order dated 11.01.05, they could have approached this C ourt by filing a review petition. Admittedly they did not. If there was any diff iculty in offering candidatures in terms of the said employment notice, the peti tioners could have approached this Court at appropriate time. Instead, they have chosen to file the instant writ petition making a general statement regarding p urported irregularity committed in conducting the selection. Another vital aspect of the matter is that the selected and appointed ca ndidates are not party respondents to this proceeding. Although at one stage, th ere was an interim order restraining the respondents from conducting the selecti on, but at a later stage the order was vacated taking note of the aforesaid empl oyment notice dated 07.01.05. while vacating the interim order, the Court duly t ook note of the argument presently being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was observed that initiation of process of direct recruitment t hrough Employment Exchange is a permissible mode of recruitment and that the emp loyment notice dated 07.01.05 having been issued making all concerned aware of t he process initiated, there is no infirmity in the particular process. As noted above, the selected and appointed candidates are not party resp ondents. Appointments have been made all throughout the State numbering several hundreds. If the prayer of the petitioners is to be granted, the appointments al ready made have to be set aside which needless to say that the writ Court cannot do in absence of the appointed candidates. The selection having been conducted pursuant to monitoring of the same by this Court and the aforesaid judgment and order, same cannot be set aside and quashed on the aforementioned grounds on whi ch the writ petition has been filed. The very tenor of the pleadings of the peti tioners and the arguments advanced by Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitio ners, it gives an impression that the petitioners instead of their own appointme nts are interested in espousing the cause of others. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly it is dismissed.