WP(C) 319/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. K.SHARMA All the writ petitions have been heard analogously. The matter pertains to the selection and appointment for the post of Jail Warder (Male and Female) i n different Jails in the State of Assam. According to the petitioners, although they had participated in the selection process, but the authorities did not publ ish the select list depriving the petitioners from being appointed. As disclosed in the writ petitions, an advertisement was issued on 16.0 9.08 by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam for the post of Warder (Male and Female). The petitioners duly offered their candidatures and they being found e ligible to appear in the selection which comprised of physical fitness test and interview, were invited for the selection. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondents did not publish any select list, but mad e appointment on pick and choose basis in a most illegal and arbitrary manner. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits denying the aforesai d plea of the petitioners. It has been stated in the affidavit that pursuant to the selection conducted, a select list was published on 08.01.09. In this connec tion, they have referred to Annexure-A notice dated 08.01.09 by which the result s were declared by the Inspector General of Prisons, Assam. It has also been sta ted that pursuant to such publication of the select list and issuance of appoint ment orders, the selected candidates have already joined their posts. I have heard Mr. N.K. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 2438/09 and W.P.(C) No. 2359/09 and W.P.(C) No. 2236/09. I have also hea rd Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1034/09 and M r. B. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 319/09. I have also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate appearin g for the respondents who has drawn my attention to the order dated 03.06.09 pas sed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 670/09 by which somewhat similar circumstance s imilar writ petition has been dismissed. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for th e parties and the materials available on record. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 319/09, the order of appointment dated 27.01.09 a nd the posting order dated 26.02.09 have been brought on record. Upon reference to the said two orders, it has been contended that the selection and appointment of the appointees were foregone conclusion and that the selection was a mere ey ewash as everything was finalised before hand. According to Mr. B. Ullah, learne d counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition, the appointees could not have been joined on 28.01.09 immediately on issuance of the appointment order o n 27.01.09. As has been brought on record by the respondents, the select list was pu blished on 08.01.09 and the appointees were appointed by orders dated 27.01.09. Once the select list was published, the selectees must be in readiness to join t he respective posts on receipt of the appointment order. It cannot be said that on the issuance of the appointment order dated 27.01.09, the appointees could no t have been joined on 28.01.09, i.e. on the following day. On perusal of Annexur e-VII order dated 26.02.09 which is the posting order, it is seen that it is no t a case of joining on 28.01.09 by all the candidates, but the appointees joined on different dates ranging from 28.01.09 to 26.02.09. That apart, merely on the basis of such a contention that the appointees could not have joined on 28.01.0 9 with the issuance of appointment order on 27.01.09, the plea of the petitioner s that everything was foregone conclusion cannot be accepted, more particularly when the select list was published on 08.01.09. Apart from the suspicion and presumption expressed in the writ petitions , there are no clinching materials to arrive at a conclusion that the selection was conducted in a farcical manner and the appointments were made on the basis o f foregone conclusion. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the writ petitions, the sel ectees/ appointees are not party respondents. Thus, no adverse orders can be pas sed against them. As submitted by Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Counsel, this Court by aforesaid order dated 03.06.09 passed in W.P.(C) No. 670/09 has d ismissed a similar writ petition. In the writ petition, it was contended that in the select list published on 08.01.09 although the names of the petitioner had figured, but he was not favoured with any appointment order. The said order date d 03.06.09 has taken note of the relevant facts involved in this proceeding incl uding the fact of publication of the select list on 08.01.09 containing the name s of 99 (Male) and 10 (Female) candidates for the post of Jail Warders. It was f ound that in the select list published on 08.01.09, the name of the petitioner w as not included. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the aforesaid o rder dated 03.06.09. The definite plea of the respondents in their counter affidavits that th e select list was published on 08.01.09 and the appointments had been made there after, has not been denied by the petitioner by filing affidavit in reply except the reply affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 319/09 contentions of which have been noted above. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione rs and consequently the writ petitions are dismissed.