WA 89/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. P. S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel appearing for the r espondent No.6 (writ petitioner). This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4339 of 2007. By the said order the learned Single Judge has interfered with the appointments of the appellants (respondent Nos.6 to 12 in the writ pet ition) which were made by order dated 24.4.2007 in different Grade-IV posts. The claim of the sixth respondent as the petitioner in WP(C) No.4339/2007 was ag ainst the appointment of the present appellants made by the aforesaid order date d 24.4.2007 while denying similar appointment to him. According to the sixth res pondent (writ petitioner) the appellants were appointed without any selection an d without following the mandate of the Rules in force and the established proced ure for appointment in public service. The learned Single Judge on due consideration of the cases of the respective par ties found that the appellants were appointed without any advertisement of the p osts and without holding any selection. As the process leading the appointment o f the appellants was in gross violation of all established norms the learned Sin gle Judge set aside the said appointments and further directed for initiation of a de novo process of selection in respect of the posts which were to fall vacan t. The learned Single Judge, however, directed that till the posts are filled up on regular basis by due advertisement and selection the appellants should be al lowed to continue in service. There can be no manner of doubt that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in unassailable in law. In fact in an earlier proceeding instituted by the respo ndent No.6 (writ petitioner) i.e. WP(C) No.555 of 2006 by order dated 1.2.2006 i t was explicitly directed that the seven posts in question will not be filled up without recourse to open advertisement and selection. While no error whatsoever is discernible in the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge there is another aspect of the matter which has surface d from the affidavits filed by the departmental authorities in the appeal. The s aid affidavits disclose that the de novo selection process ordered by the learne d Single Judge has been completed and coincidentally the seven posts were identi fied to be posts available to different reserve category candidates. Accordingly , the select list that has been drawn up consists of reserve category candidates only to which neither the respondent No.6 (writ petitioner) or the appellants b elong. In such a situation, according to the learned counsel for the appellants , the appellants will be rendered unemployed and therefore certain additional di rections for consideration of their cases against other available posts in the d epartment have been prayed for. If the seven consequential vacancies created by the termination of appellants fa ll to the share of reserve category candidates as per the roster points the said posts have to be filled up by such candidates. For this purpose a select list c onsisting of reserve category candidates in order of merit have been drawn up. T he appellants, therefore, could not have been considered against the posts which have fallen vacant on account of their termination. However, having regard to t he fact that the appellants have been intermittently working in the department, though on fortuitous basis, we deem it appropriate to direct that as and when an y advertisement/employment notice is issued for other posts the cases of the app ellants as well as the sixth respondent (writ petitioner) shall be considered ag ainst such posts by giving due relaxation of their upper age if any of them has crossed the stipulated age. That apart, while making the consequential selection s some weightage as may be considered appropriate by the appointing authority ma y also be given to the sixth respondent (writ petitioner) and the present appell ants keeping in mind the previous service that may have been rendered by them. The appeal is dismissed subject to the observations as above.