WA 151/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY (Goel,J.) This order will dispose of the Writ Appeal No.132 of 2011 and Writ Appeal No.151 of 2011 as both the appeals arise out of the common order, dated 15.03.2011, pa ssed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in WP(C) Nos.3812/2010 and 2279/2010 , disposing of writ petitions filed 27 persons challenging the communication dat ed 29.10.2009 declining to approve the selection list for the Recorders Certific ate Class Course (RCCC) Training. An advertisement dated 4.11.2006 was issued by the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam inviting applications for selection for admission against 160 sea ts of the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Institute. About 12000 candidate s submitted their applications. Written test was conducted which was followed by viva voce. Viva voce was limited to only 560 candidates, which was upheld by th is Court in WP(C) No.3419/2007 and in Writ Appeal No.413/2007. The Director of L and Records and Surveys, Assam, published select list of 160 candidates and sent the candidates for the training. Thereafter, the Director sent further lists, c alled 2nd, 3rd and 4th lists, but the said lists have not been approved by the Government which is the grievance made by the appellants in the writ petitions. According to the appellants-writ petitioners, vacancies are available and a deci sion was rightly taken to fill up the vacancies. There was no reason not to appo int the appellants against the available posts. This stand was contested on the ground that vacancies beyond the advertised post s could not be filled up, particularly in view of directions of this Court by th e order dated 19.02.2004 passed in WP(C) No.7504 of 2002. Learned Single Judge, after noticing the earlier directions of this Court dated 19.02.2004, referred to above, rejected the plea of the appellants as follows : 11. In the earlier writ proceeding filed by some other writ petitioners, i.e . WP(C) No.7504/2002 an order was passed on 19.02.2004 directing the authorities to issue advertisement specifying the number of seats available for training an d also directing the respondent authorities not to admit any candidate beyond th e numbers specified in the advertisement. That apart since 160 seats were advert ised vide notice dated 04.11.2006, even if the Director had exercised the discre tion for running a second batch in the same year, a further advertisement is req uired to be issued for selecting the next batch of candidates, pursuant to Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules. It is also evident from the judgment and order dated 29.01.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3903/2009 as well as the order dated 01.12.2007 pa ssed in Writ Appeal No.413/2007 that 560 candidates were called for viva-voce te st based on number of seats advertised i.e. 160 and in the event any candidate o ther than 160, whose names appeared in the 1st list dated 20.12.2007 and who wer e admitted in the course, are allowed to undergo such 6(six) months training pur suant to 2nd, 3rd ad 4th list prepared by the Director, it would amount to depri ving the other candidates qualified in the written test but were not called for the viva-voce test because of the decision of the Government to limit the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test from out of the qualified candida tes in the written test. Moreover, by that time some other candidates must have acquired the required qualifications and eligible to apply for selection to unde rgo such training. In the event, all the 560 candidates who appeared in the viva -voce test are allowed to joint the said course pursuant to 2nd, 3rd and 4th lis t prepared and published by the Director, it would amount to depriving such cand idates from participating in the process. It also appears that another advertise ment was issued on 17th May, 2010, on the basis of which in total 406 candidates were selected for undergoing training, the first batch of which joined their tr aining course on 1st Marc, 2011. We have heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant s and Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that under the Rules for the Assam Su rvey & Settlement Training Centre the Director of Surveys can decide the number of candidates to be selected for admission to the Centre for the course and sele ct them in the manner to be decided by him having regard to merit and actual nee d of the district. The Rule relied upon is as under : The Director of Surveys, will then decide the number of candidate to be selecte d for admission to the Centre for the course and select them in the manner to be dsecided by him having due regard to the order of merit as shown by the marks o btained in the examination and subject to the actual need of the district and us ual reservation quota for tribal, Scheduled Caste and other Backward class cand idates. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order by submitting that posts beyond advertised vacancies could not be filled up even if the same are available. The Rule providing for decision to be taken by the Dire ctor as to number of candidates to be selected has to be implemented subject to the number of vacancies being specified in the advertisement. This is more so in view of earlier order of this Court governing the matter as referred to by the learned Single Judge. After due consideration, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The rule relied upon does compel filling up of vacancies beyond ad vertised posts. The same is merely enabling. It cannot be read as requiring fill ing up of posts beyond the vacancies advertised. In this regard we also refer to settled law reiterated in State of UP and others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others , reported in (2006)3 SCC 330, as follows : Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of t he Constitution. (See Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992 Supp (3) SCC 8 4 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 : (1992) 21 ATC 851]; Gujrat State Dy. Executive Enginee rs’ Assn. v. State of Gujrat [1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 : 1994 SCC (L & S 1159 : (19 94) 28 ATC 78]; State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Unio n, 1986 [(1994) 1 SCC 126 : 1994 SCC (L & S) 274 : (1994) 26 ATC 500 : AIR 1994 SC 736]; Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB [(1996) 4 SCC 319 : 1996 SCC (L & S) 934]; Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(1997) 8 SCC 488 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 65 : AIR 1998 SC 18] and Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta [(1998) 3 SCC 45 : 19 98 SCC (L & S) 720 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] [para 13] In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit and/or substance in the a ppeals. Both the appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs.