WP(C) 3468/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI The petitioner’s case is, in brief thus : While the petitioner had been working as a night Chowkidar, in the office of the Block Mission Coordinator, Mandia, Barpeta, on being appointed, on 19.12.2009, on daily wage basis, the local MLA, who is also a Parliamentary Secretary (Home) , Government of Assam, issued letter, dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ p etition), whereby he suggested to the District Mission Coordinator, Sarba Shiksh a Abhijan, Barpeta, to appoint respondent No.6, namely, Abdul Hai, in place of t he petitioner on the ground that Abdul Hai is an experienced chowkidar, in Mandi a Block, by canceling the appointment of the present petitioner. Acting upon the suggestion so made, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the res pondent No.6 was appointed by order, dated 05.05.2010. Aggrieved by the action o f the State respondents, the petitioner is before this Court seeking, with the h elp of the present writ petition, issuance of appropriate directions. I have heard Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Rajkhowa, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 and Mr. H. K. Barman, learned Govt. Advoca te, Assam, appearing for respondent No.4. Heard also Mr. A. Rashid, learned coun sel for respondent No.6. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the prese nt petitioner was not appointed by following any selection process. Similarly, s o far as the present appointment, which is under challenge, of the respondent No .6 is concerned, he (respondent No.6) too has come to be appointed merely on the suggestion of the Parliamentary Sectary (Home). Thus, neither the appointment of the petitioner nor the appointment of the respo ndent No.6 is in accordance with law. The State respondents ought to have borne in mind that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India require the State t o make appointment, in public domain, by adhering to a selection process, which means affording opportunity to all eligible intending candidates to participates in the selection process. Any appointment made, without resorting to a proper s election process, can be called nothing but arbitrary and would not be sustained . While, therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.6, being against law and constitutional guarantee, cannot be sustained, no mandamus can be issued directi ng appointment of the petitioner. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 05.05.201 0, whereby the respondent No.6 was appointed, is hereby set aside and quashed. T he direction, sought for by the petitioner, for his appointment is also hereby d eclined and turned down. The State respondents, particularly, respondent No.2, D irector, Axom Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, and its functionaries, namely, respo ndent Nos.3 and 4, namely, the District Elementary Education Officer-cum-Distric t Mission Coordinator, SSA, Barpeta, and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman SS A, Barpeta, respectively, are hereby directed to hold a selection process and, t hen, make appointment in accordance with law. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition shall stand dispose d of. No costs.