WP(C) 5512/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. H.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of LDA-cum-Typist in Kalain and Tapang I CDS Project in the district of Cachar under Social Welfare Department, for which selection was conducted in the year 2005-06. Referring to the select list that was published vide notification dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure-13) the case of the p etitioner is that his merit position being at serial No. 6, ought to have been a ppointed against one of the 6 vacancies, but instead the official respondents ap pointed the respondents No. 5 and 6, whose merit positions are at serial No. 7 a nd 12 with Roll No. 206 and 73. Be it stated here that the petitioner was allott ed Roll No. 254. The appointment of the respondent No. 5 has already been upheld by this Court in the order passed today in WP(C) No. 6468/2006 as he was appointed applying 1% r eservation under sports quota. So far as the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is the stand of the petitioner that he having secured 59 marks in the selection as against 60 marks secured by the petitioner and consequently having placed below the petitioner in the merit list could not have been appoin ted. In absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents both official and respondent No. 4, it is not discernible as to under what circumstance the sa id respondent No. 4 was appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are vacancies against whic h the petitioner can be accommodated without disturbing the respondent No. 4. Mr . Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department submits that the ma tter is required to be looked into by the authority in the Social Welfare Depart ment to find out the veracity or otherwise of the contention raised in the writ petition. However, he fairly submits that if the petitioner was superceded in th e matter of appointment, he deserves fair consideration. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Commission er & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department to lo ok into the grievance of the petitioner and pass a speaking order as expeditious ly as possible, but at any rate not later than three months from today. It is ma de clear that no adverse order shall be passed against the respondent No. 4 with out affording him any opportunity of being heard. Writ petition is disposed of.