WP(C) 5865/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, DLR. I have also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner projecting her to be an a spirant for the post of Extra Writer, has challenged the Annexure-4 advertisemen t dated 8.8.2010, by which candidatures have been invited for 42 posts of Extra Writer. The advertisement has been issued by Inspector General of Registration, Assam. Two fold grounds on which the writ petition has been filed and on the ba sis of which Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his argum ents are that (1) the Inspector General of Registration being not the Appointing Authority, is not empowered to issue the advertisement and (2) the other ground urged is that the rules do not envisage publication of any advertisement and th at the candidates should be sponsored by the Local Employment Exchanges. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have referred to the earlier s election conducted in 2008 and the appointment made thereafter. As regards the i mpugned advertisement, it has been stated that the plea of the petitioner not to publish any advertisement is misconceived. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the Govt. of Assam in the concerned Department i.e. the Re venue (Registration) Department, vide its letter dated 20.3.2010, granted the ap proval to the respondent No.2 i.e. inspector General of Registration, Assam to f ill up the vacant sanctioned posts of Extra Writer. It was pursuant to such appr oval, the respondent No.2 initiated the process of recruitment to fill up the 42 vacancies in different offices of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) in the State of Assam vide the impugned advertisement dated 8.8.2010. It has also been state d that the advertisement has been issued giving wide publication by way of publi shing the same in different Newspapers of Assam. There is no rule debarring the Inspector General of Registration from pu blication of the advertisement. He is the Head of the Department. As regards the plea of the petitioner that there cannot be any advertisement and that the cand idatures should be sponsored by the Employment Exchange, suffice is to say that advertisement in newspapers and other modes attract wide participation. Such wid e participation in a selection cannot be faulted with. The petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice caused to him bec ause of publication of the advertisement under the signature of the Inspector Ge neral of Registration, Assam. He has also not been able to show any prejudice be cause of the process of larger participation in the selection process because of the impugned advertisement. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and a ccordingly it is dismissed. On conclusion of the selection, appointment shall b e made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.