The main legal point established is that vacancies must be filled as per the advertisement and select list, and challenges to regularisation must include the policy decision and notification.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The appellants who are writ petitioners WP(C) No. 2026 of 2001, 2036 of 2001 and 4932 of 2001, by present appeals have challenged the common judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a batch of writ petitions including the present concerned writ petitions.

2. The Writ Petition No. 2026 of 2001 as well as 2036 of 2001 have been filed by the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 8 of 2005 praying for a direction to the State respondents to fill up 27 posts of Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O)/probation officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.8.1997 and also to fill up all anticipated vacancies that had arisen on or after the date of advertisement till the completion of selection process from amongst the candidates whose names appeared in the select list dated 17.7.2000. The Writ Petition(C) No. 4932 of 2001 has been filed by the appellants in W.A. No. 471 of 2003 challenging the Cabinet memorandum dated 16.6.2000 circulated by the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Social and Welfare Department under Rule 17 of Assam, Rules of Executive Business relating to the regularisation of 18 C.D.P.Os./probation officer, who are appointed under Regulation 3(f) of Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulations 1951 and also praying for a direction to the official respondents to appoint the writ petitioners/appellants in the vacant/newly created post of C.D.P.Os./probation officer. Both the writ appeals have been taken up for hearing and disposal as in both the writ appeals the common judgment and order passed by the Single Judge has been challenged.

3. We have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals, Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned Advocate General, Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondents, Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7, 14 to 21 and Mr. A.M. Bazurbaruah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19 in Writ Appeal No. 471 of 2003.

4. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that though vide advertisement dated 19.8.1997, 27 posts of C.D.P.Os in Social Welfare Department were advertised by the APSC and the selection was held on the basis of the said advertisement, there being 16 numbers of additional existing vacancies available on the date on which the select list was published, i.e., on 17.7.2000, the said existing vacancies are to be filled up from out of the candidates selected by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) as the anticipated or existing vacancies can be filed up from the select list so prepared. The thrust of the argument of the learned senior counsel, therefore, is that the State respondents can fill up the vacancies from out of the select list prepared in excess of the post advertised. Challenging the regularisation of the private respondents in writ appeal No. 471 of 2003, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the policy decision taken by the Government to regularize their services, who were initially appointed temporarily and de hors the rules, under Regulation 3(f) of the 1951, regulation and who could not be successful in the selection made by the APSC and whose names do not figure in the select list dated 17.7.2000, is contrary to the provision contained in the recruitment rules and also it amounts to giving the benefit of regularisation of service the persons who have not been selected by the APSC in the selection made pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.8.1997. According to the learned senior counsel the said action on the part of the official respondents amounts to encouragement of back door entry into the service. The learned senior counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on Smti. Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1998 SC 3268, Virender S. Hooda and Ors.