WP(C) 35/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 1181/ 2011 and WP(C) 2546/2011. These are the persons who were selected for the advert ised posts of Extra Writers. Also heard Mr. H Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 78/2 011, WP(C) 935/2011 and WP(C) 846/2011. These petitioners challenge the process of selection, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.7.2010. The 3 petitioners in WP(C) 1569/2011 are represented by Mr. BD Konwar and the lo ne petitioner in WP(C) 1117/2011 is represented by Mr. B Sinha, the learned coun sel. The names of these 4 persons appeared in the first select list dated 21.1.2 011 but their names were omitted in the recast select list of 5.2.2011. Mr. A Dewan, the learned counsel appears for the petitioners in WP(C) 444/2011, who failed to quality in the first phase of recruitment, i.e. the dictation test . Mr. A Hai, the learned counsel submits that WP(C) 2548/2011 is a different case and should be segregated from the other cases of Extra Writers. Mr. M Choudhury and Mr. S Sarma appear for the Inspector General of Registration , who is the appointing authority of the Extra Writers. The recruitment process was set in motion through advertisement of 42 posts of E xtra Writers on 30.7.2010. After the candidates were subjected to dictation test held between 3.11.2010 to 4.12.2010, the Roll Nos. of the successful candidates was notified on 1.1.2011 to conduct viva-voce test, for the successful candidat es. After viva-voce was held from 8.1.2011 to 12.1.2011, the first select list o f 42 candidates was notified on 21.1.2011 by the Addl Director of Land Records/C hairman of the Selection Committee. But the 1st select list was not prepared correctly as names of reserve category candidates, who should have been placed in the merit list, were shown against re served vacancies. Similarly, separation of male and female candidates were unnec essarily made without any basis. Accordingly, the Inspector General of Registrat ion, Assam by communication dated 28.1.2011 referred to these discrepancies and requested for re-casting the select list. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued o n 5.2.2011, notifying a fresh select list of 42 candidates, for the posts of Ext ra Writers. Mr. BD Konwar, the learned counsel submits that his clients Md. Nazimul Haque Ch oudhury, Sri Prasanna Barman and Tehema Begum, who have filed WP(C) 1569/2011 an d one Salimuddin Ahmed, who has filed WP(C) 1117/2011, although were empanelled in the 1st select list of 21.1.2011, were omitted from the 2nd select list, pre pared on 5.2.2011. Mr. M Choudhury submits that after the meritorious reserve category candidates were placed in the regular merit list, 4 reserve category candidates were incl uded in the recast list dated 5.2.2011 and that is how the 4 petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 1569/2011 and Writ Petition No. 1117/2011 were excluded from t he 2nd list. However, he submits that these excluded persons had qualified in th e dictation test. Mr. Choudhury further refers to the communication dated 15.2.2011 of the Inspect or General of Registration to show that 2 persons Sri Naba Kumar Das and Sri Kho pkhosat Haolai had not qualified in the dictation test and yet their names were shown in the re-cast list of 5.2.2011. This aspect according to the learned coun sel, is required to be further verified by the appointing authority. Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, the learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates su bmits that because of the interim orders passed in WP(C) 1569/2011 and WP(C) 111 7/2011, the selected candidates are yet to be appointed. He accordingly submits that since the selection was held in accordance through a due process in 2 phases i.e. dictation and viva voce, the selected candidates s hould be cleared for appointment. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In respect of 36 of the 42 names, who were empanelled in the re-cast s elect list of 5.2.2011, no controversy is noticed. The selection appear to have been made after observing all the codal formalities and the general challenge of the non-selected candidate in WP(C) 78/2011, WP(C) 955/2011 and WP(C) 1444/201 1 are found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently the appointing authority is permitted to give appointment to 36 of the selected candidates, legitimacy of whose selection, is not being questioned by anyone in these proceedings. But in respect of Md. Nazimul Haque Choudhury, Sri Prasanna Barman and Tehema Be gum and Salimuddin Ahmed, the appointing authority may take a decision as to whe ther, they can be accommodated in the 6 additional vacancies of Extra Writers, as is disclosed through the PIO’s communication dated 28.6.2011. A copy of the l etter dated 28.6.2011 of the PIO is made part of the case record. Necessary exer cise shall be done within 4 weeks from today. On the alleged non- qualification of Sri Naba Kumar Das and Sri Khopkhosat Haola i, in the dictation test, the appointing authority will verify as to whether the se 2 persons had qualified in the first phase of the recruitment test. If they h ad failed in the dictation test, naturally they shall have no right to get appoi ntment. To complete the process of appointment of the newly selected persons, the Govt. will take an appropriate decision on the communication of 15.2.2011, addressed b y the Director of Land Records and Survey. Thereafter, the selected candidates m ay be given appointment, without any delay. The cases are disposed of with the above order. The interim order, if any, merge s with this final order. The WP(C) No. 1181 should be made the leading case in this group.