WP(C) 5246/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also heard M r. K.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The matter relates to appointment to the post of Supervisor in the Social Welfar e Department for which the petitioner was selected. Her name appeared in serial No. 14 of the select list. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the respondents appointed can didates below the petitioner in the merit list. This aspect of the matter has be en admitted by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam in his affidavit filed on 2 3.5.2011. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, it has been stated that total number of posts of Supervisor in Nalbari District were 18, out of which 17 were appoint ed. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that although the n ame of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 14 of the merit list, but in absenc e of any record, it is not discernible as to why she was not appointed. The very foundation of the case of the petitioner is that she was superceded in the matter of appointment bypassing merit position. If candidates below the peti tioner had been appointed and there is a vacant post, I see no reason as to why the petitioner should also not be appointed. Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Co unsel, Social Welfare Department conforms the aforesaid position. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent s, more particularly the Director of Social Welfare Department to appoint the pe titioner to the post of Supervisor, for which she was selected as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.12.2011. Upon such appointment, same will relate back to the date when juniors of the petitioner were appointed for all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to any back wages. Above revelation of fact depicts that there was some foul play on the part of so me departmental officials in not appointing the petitioner and she was allowed t o be superceded by the candidates whose merit positions were below her. The Dire ctor may find as to who were the said officials and take necessary action in acc ordance with law.