WP(C) 8723/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department. I have also he ard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel, representing the private respondent. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is in respect of the selection conducted for filling up some backlog vacancies of Grade-III and IV in the Dhema ji district. There is no dispute that the selection is already over and at the s tage of offering appointment. 3. Although Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of any proper employment notification by way of advertisement etc. the petitioner did not get the opportunity to participate in the selection process, but from the averments made in the writ petition, no such stand is discernible. Only repeated statement made in the writ petition is to the effect that some loc al unemployed youth came to know about the selection only on 12.8.2005 when they saw gathering of candidates for the purpose of interview fixed. It is nowhere f ound in the writ petition that the petitioners himself was deprived of participa tion in the selection process because of any deficiency in advertising the posts . The petitioner cannot be said to hold brief for local unemployed youths. The p urported local unemployed youth are not before us. 4. Mr. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department submit s that the vacancies were duly notified and the Chief Engineer made request to t he authorities for conducting selection on the basis of the candidatures receive d through employment exchange as per the requisition placed. The employment exch ange sponsored the eligible candidates and on the basis of such candidature, the authority conducted the selection. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel representing the private respondents submits that the procedure adopted was uniform through o ut the State and on the basis of such process all selected candidates in other d istricts have already been appointed. However, in view of the stay order operati ng in this case, the selected candidates could not be appointed. 5. Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the provision of Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 195 9 and the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 10 SCC 276 (Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana) submits that it was incumbent on the part of the authorit ies to give wide publication by way of advertisement etc. to fill up backlog vac ancies. 6. The above aspects of the matter can only be considered in case of agitat ing the grievance by the deprive candidate. As noted above, it is not the case o f the petitioner that he is a deprived candidate. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition that the petitioner was an aspirant for Grade-III and IV vaca ncies involved in this proceeding. Only statement made in the writ petition is t hat some local unemployed youths have been deprived of in participating in the s election process. If that be so, it was on the part of the said local youths and not for the petitioner to agitate the grievance. Writ Court does not exercise t he power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on th e basis of a petition filed not by the actual aggrieved person. The petitioner c annot be said to hold brief for the local unemployed youths. The instant proceed ing is also not in the form of PIL. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione r and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed on 19.12 .2005 stands vacated.