WP(C) 2347/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Education Department and Ms. K Devi for the private respondent Nos.6 to 9. The Finance Department (respondent No.5) is represented by Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 5th May, 2010 (Annexure-3) whe reby approval is accorded by the Government for adjusting the services of the se rving employees (respondent Nos.6 to 9) against regular Grade-IV vacancies throu gh a limited selection process. The petitioners challenge the process through wh ich the selection is confined amongst the 4 serving employees, without advertise ment of the posts to enable a wider participation of interested candidates. 3. Defending the impugned action, Ms. K Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 to 9, refers to report dated 26th June, 2007 of the Directo r of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Assam to show how the respondents were enga ged to serve as night chowkider, cleaner, etc. in the Directorate, considering t he indispensability of such functionaries in the office and accordingly the lear ned counsel supports the decision taken to regularize the service of the private respondents through a process of adjustment and limited selection. 4. Representing the Employer, Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel subm its that the respondents were engaged without holding selection and without conc urrence of the Finance Department and accordingly the Government approval was so ught for regularization of services of the appointees, through a process of sele ction. The learned counsel further submits that ex-post facto approval for the p roposed adjustment has already been granted by the Personal (B) Department as we ll as the Finance (SIU) Department and accordingly the respondents are being reg ularized through a process of limited selection in regular Grade-IV vacancies in the Directorate. 5. Representing the Finance (SIU) Department, Mr. B Gogoi, learned standing counsel refers to the conditional approval granted on 31.3.2008 to the proposal mooted for adjustment of services of the private respondents where selection wa s specified as a pre-condition of adjustment of the serving employees. According ly the learned counsel contends that the respondents could not have been given r egular appointment without following the requisite formalities of selection and appointment. 6. The Departmental counsel as well as the private respondents referred to the order passed by this Court on 11.8.2008 in W P (C) No.3446/08 to submit that the impugned process of limited selection is based upon that order and no inter ference is warranted with the process of adjustment of the private respondents. 7. As can be seen from the materials on record and the submissions made, th e respondent Nos.6 to 9 entered service without a regular process of selection. Now their services are sought to be regularized through a so called selection pr ocess, in respect of the 4 regular available Grade-IV posts, confining the selec tion to the 4 serving appointees. 8. Such mode of appointment to regular vacancies through a process of limit ed selection is certainly opposed to the principle of fairness and equal opportu nity provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in my considered view, the impugned process does not have the sanction of law. Such a process of limited selection cannot also be supported through the Court’s order passed in W P (C) No.3446/08, since the learned Court in its order had merely directed disp osal of the representation filed by the petitioner therein, who was not getting his regular salary. 9. That apart, the approval of the Personal (B) Department was conditional that adjustment of the appointee can’t be made without a due selection process a nd there is nothing to show that the contemplated selection process was to be a limited one, confined to the 4 serving private respondents. 10. In the above perspective, I hold that the impugned process of appointmen t/adjustment of the private respondents against regular vacancies through a limi ted selection process is unsustainable in law and the same is accordingly quashe d. The concerned respondents are accordingly directed to ensure that regular Gra de-IV vacancies in the Directorate of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Assam are filled up, by following the codal formalities like advertisement and selection t o ensure wider participation and transparency and not through a limited selectio n process, confined to the 4 serving employees. But if the serving appointees of fer their candidature, age relaxation for them should be considered as they have served in the Directorate since last several years. 11. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction without any or der on cost.