WP(C) 1726/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr R Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr J Singh, the learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to appoint him to the post of LDA Grade III u nder the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Assam, despite his inclusion in the select list at Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. The case of the p etitioner is that he is basically deaf and dumb with hearing problem and managed to get admission at Deaf and Dumb School, Guwahati to pursue his education. He appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2002 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam and passed the examination for which a p rovisional certificate was issued to him. On the basis of the medical examinati on conducted upon him by the ENT Department, Guwahati Medical College, he was di agnosed with a case of profound hearing loss (more than 90 OB) vide the certific ate dated 27.6.2002 issued by the Dr. Pathak. He also completed a course on Ent repreneurship Awareness Programme and Welding conducted by the Assam Engineering Institute during the year 2002, for which he was also issued a certificate by t he Principal, Assam Engineering Institute in the year 2005, the respondent autho rities requisitioned from the Employment Exchange candidates for Class III and C lass IV posts in different departments of the Government of Assam, including Soc ial Welfare Department against the vacancies for persons with disabilities. His name was accordingly sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The District Level Selection Committee in the Social Welfare Department asked him to appear in the interview for the post of Grade III category, which he did on 6.7.2005. Accordi ng to the petitioner, he did extremely well in the interview and was accordingly selected for the post of LDA Grade III. The case of the petitioner is that whe n he had legitimate expectation of being appointed to that post on the basis of the select list so prepared, he found to his dismay that some other persons in t he select list who are similarly situated had been appointed by leaving him out for the appointment. This is how, this writ petition has been filed. In resisting the writ petition, the respondent authorities filed their a ffidavit-in-opposition wherein they revealed that the name of the petitioner fig ured at Serial No. 4 in the merit list, but three other candidates were placed a bove him in the said merit list. According to the respondent authorities, as th ere are only two posts of LDA available, he was not given an offer of appointmen t as the two posts had to be filled up by the candidates who had scored better m arks than the petitioner as evident from Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-oppositi on. It is also pointed out by the respondent authorities that the candidate at Serial No. 3 like the petitioner could not also be accommodated against any post as the same were filled up by the candidate at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 who performe d better than them. It was under the aforesaid circumstances, according to the respondent authorities, that the petitioner could not be accommodated for appoin tment to the post of LDA under Social Welfare Department. After hearing Mr R Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr J Singh, the learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department, I am of the op inion that the writ petition has no merit and the contents of Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities are self explanatory . The admitted position of the parties is that one Dwijen Ch Thakuria and anoth er Nayanjyoti Mishra who obtained 56 marks and 53 marks respectively were given appointment to the posts of LDA in terms of the District-wise Merit List of Hear ing Impaired Candidates whereas the petitioner and the candidate at Serial No. 3 in the merit list obtained only 41 marks each. It is not the case of the petit ioner is that merit is not the criterion for appointment to the post of LDA. Th at being the position, the respondent authorities did not commit any illegality in not appointing the petitioner to the post of LDA. No case is, therefore, mad e out by the petitioner for interference of this Court. For what has been stated in the foregoing discussion is that this writ p etition has no merit, and is, therefore, dismissed. However, on the facts and i n the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respecti ve costs.