WP(C) 844/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the sele ction process for the posts of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, for which advertisement was issued on 1.7.2009. According to the petitioners, the en tire selection process is vitiated on the following grounds :- (i) Although, as per the requirement, self addressed stamped envelope accomp anied the application offering candidature but the call letters were not issued making use of the said envelopes. It has also been stated that some of the petit ioners received call letters after the selection was over and consequently, they could not appear in the selection. The petitioners have also mentioned about th e press release issued by the Secretary, SEBA postponing the particular date of seletion. (ii) Another plea taken by the petitioners is that some unqualified candidate s named in paragraph 6 were called for the selection and thus the selection was vitiated. In this connection, the petitioners have named two candidates. Howeve r, the said two candidates are not party respondents to this proceeding and thus , no adverse order can be passed against them, as the same will amount to condem ning the said candidates unheard. (iii) According to the petitioners, the Board officials favoured their kith an d kins in the process of selection. However, neither the Board members nor their alleged kith and kins have been named in the writ petition. They are also not p arty respondents. (iv) Another allegation made in the writ petition is the out of the 430 selec tion candidates, 50% are from Dispur Assembly Constituency and thus there was fo ul play in the selection process. However, neither the 430 candidates nor 50% o f the candidates about which mention has been made in paragraph 13 of the writ p etition are party respondents. It is on the above basis, the petitioners have called in question the entire sel ection process. However, neither the candidates who sat in the selection nor the selected candidates and also candidates against whom the petitioners have made allegations, are party respondents in the writ petition. Above being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioners on the bas is of some wholesome, indefinite and vague allegation made in the writ petition. The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the allegations. As a ma tter of fact, the Social Welfare Department entrusted the selection to SEBA. Whi le scrutinizing the applications, when it was found that that some of the self addressed stamped envelopes were in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, it was d ecided to send the call letters in separate envelopes as a measure of abandoned caution. The date of selection was also notified well ahead of the selection in the newspaper. This process was done with the simultaneous process of issuance o f the call letters. In the newspaper publication mentioning about the date of se lection, etc, it was also notified that if any candidate had not received the ca ll letters, they could collect the same from the office of the SEBA. As regards the allegation that two of the candidates, although were not qualifie d to sit in the selection but were called for the same, the respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the same. It has been stated that out of the two candidates, no one named Smt. I. Kalita was found qualified in the written exam ination. The allegation made against the other candidate, namely, Smt. Nizara Ch oudhury, has also been denied. It has been denied that no unqualified candidates had been called for the interview. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioners were deprived of pa rticipation in the selection process. Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for th e petitioners submits that some of the petitioners did not have any access to th e newspaper and thus were not aware of the date of the selection. However, on be ing asked whether any such statement has been made in the writ petition, he coul d not point out anything. Even otherwise also, such a stand is not believable, i nasmuch as, the petitioners have enclosed newspaper publication of the advertise ment, press release for examination, etc. As regards the allegation against the Board Members, except a vague statement, n o particulars have been furnished. Moreover, as noted above, they are also not p arty respondents, by name in this proceeding. In view of the above, the manner and method in which the writ petition is struct ured, the Writ Court exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of t he Constitution of India, cannot make a roving enquiry into the veracity of the vague and indefinite pleas made by the petitioners in the writ petition. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order passed on 15.2.2011 stands vaca ted. At this stage, Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioners have pointed out involvement of Smt. I. Kalita. However, the said Smt. Kalita is also not a party respondent in this pr oceeding. Thus, no adverse order can be passed against her.