WP(C) 35/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as wel l as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 4 & 5. The petitioners were aspirants for being appointed as Statistical Assist ant in the Sonitpur District under Social Welfare Department. They had appeared in the selection conducted for the purpose under Roll Nos. 212, 10 and 151 respe ctively. The petitioners claimed that their merit positions were at Sl. No. 7, 8 & 9 against 9(nine) vacancies and thus were entitled to get appointment. Howeve r, the candidate at Sl. No. 13 i.e. the respondent No.4, was appointed supersedi ng the merit position of the petitioners. Another vacancy was filled up through the respondent No.5 by transferring him from Kamrup District to Sonitpur Distric t. It is stated here that the said respondent was selected for Kamrup District a nd was also appointed against a vacancy in Kamrup District. Although, according to the respondent No.4, he belonged to SC category b ut Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner by producing the RTI info rmation furnished by the department, submits that it is really not clear as to w hether the said candidate belongs to SC category. However, in the counter affida vit filed by the respondent No. 4 & 5, a certificate certifying the said respond ent as SC category candidate has been annexed. As regards the filling up of the other vacancy by transferring the respondent No .5 from Kamrup District to Sonitpur District, the reason thereof is not discerni ble in absence of any counter affidavit filed by the official respondents. It is also not discernible as to why the other vacancy was not filled up from the sel ected candidates. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Commissione r and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department, to look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass a speaking order, as expeditiousl y as possible, preferably within three months from today. It is made clear that no adverse order shall be passed against the said two respondents without afford ing them an opportunity of being heard. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off, without howe ver, any order as to costs.