WP(C) 3999/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitio ner in WP(C) No.3999/2005 as well as Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) No.193/2005. The petitioners, who are working as Instructors under the respondents, a re aspirants for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Instrumentation Technology . In fact, they had been selected for appointment by the Selection Committee as per its meeting held on 7.2.2003. The Selection Committee considered the cases of promotion in various disciplines including the discipline of Instrumentation Technology. While the petitioner in WP(C) No.3999/2005 was placed at Sl. No.1, the petitioner in WP(C) No.193/2005 was placed at Sl. No.2. As per the minutes of the said meeting, there are two vacancies and accordingly, the two candidates namely the petitioners, were selected for appointment. However, when the petit ioners were not appointed, they agitated their grievance and by the Annexure-10 letter dated 29.5.2004, it was intimated that there was in fact, no vacant post to accommodate the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken is th at the Selection Committee was wrongly apprised of two vacant posts although in fact, there was no vacant post of Lecturer in the particular Branch. As per the said affidavit, the correct vacancy position was not placed before the Selection Committee, which was an inadvertent mistake. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, their stand in the wr it petitions has been reiterated. Both Mr. Roshid and Mr. Sarmah, learned counse l for the petitioners have submitted that if there was no vacant post, the selec tion process ought not to have been initiated. According to them, the plea of t he respondents is not tenable inasmuch as if there was no vacant post, the selec tion could not have been conducted. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, on the oth er hand, submits that if there was no vacant post, it was immaterial as to wheth er the petitioners have been recommended for promotion as Lecturer. He submits t hat the respondents are keen to promote the petitioners, but since there are no vacancies, they could not be so promoted. The respondents are very much categorical in their counter affidavit tha t it was an inadvertent mistake to apprise the Selection Committee about the pur ported two vacancies of Lecturer in the particular discipline, for which the cas e of the petitioners was considered. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, t he respondents have given break up of vacancy position to show that in fact, at the time of making the selection, there was no vacancy, but inadvertently, two v acancies were shown because of which the Selection Committee made the recommenda tion. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Howev er, since they have already been selected, it will be open for the respondents t o consider the case of the petitioners against the future vacancies. In this connection, Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 12 of the Assam Technical Services Rules. According to him, this Rule p ermits inter-discipline promotion. The respondents may consider that aspect of the matter also. With the above direction, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.