WP(C) 2104/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A Sharif, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. MK Mishra, learned standing counsel who appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s father retired as a teacher of Accountancy on 30th Nove mber, 2008 while serving in Kharupetia HS School. He claims the benefit of appoi ntment against the 10% quota for eligible children of retired teachers in accord ance with the policy notified on 23rd July, 1999, by the Government. According t o the petitioner, although he applied in terms of the Government Notification da ted 23rd July, 1999, his case has not been considered by the respondents. 3. Mr. MK Mishra, learned standing counsel refers to the Division Bench dec ision of this Court in Shahejul Hussain Saikia vs. State of Assam reported in 20 05 (2) GLT 241 to submit that candidates who apply for consideration against the quota meant for children of retired teachers, must go through a selection proce ss and assessment of merit is a sine qua non for considering appointment against the 10% quota vacancies. 4. Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner has not undergone any sel ection process and his merit is yet to be assessed. Only when the petitioner is selected on merit, he is entitled to have his case considered in terms of the Go vernment Notification dated 23rd July, 1999, the relevant portion of which is ex tracted here-in-below: In suppression of the Govt. Notification No.A(I)E341/92/82 dated 8/4/97 regardi ng 10% reservation quota against the vacancies in L.P.School for the wards of L. P.School Teachers, the Govt. in Education Department decided to extend the benef it of reservation to the sons or unmarried daughter of retired teachers from Pri mary to Secondary level teachers within the approved quota of 10% (ten PC) accor ding to merit. The Govt. reiterated that while filing up these categories of can didates, the roster point as communicated vide Govt. letter No.B(2)H667/94Pt.-I dated 1st July, 1997, be strictly followed 5. In view of above and considering the judgment of this Court in Shahejul Hussain Saikia (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that the State respondent s be directed that, as and when a selection process for appointment of the post( s) envisaged in the Notification dated 23rd July, 1999 is initiated, if the peti tioner offers his candidature, his merit should be assessed. Thereafter his case should be considered for appointment against the 10% quota, along with similarl y situated candidates, subject to his satisfying the other conditions of eligibi lity prescribed in the notification dated 23rd July, 1999. It is ordered accordi ngly. 6. However it is made clear that this order should not be construed as a di rection to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any post. 7. The case is disposed of with the above direction.