Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. Both the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less identical facts were heard together and are being answered by this common judgment and order.

2. The facts are somewhat long and a detail narration thereof will be necessary to understand the issues arising in the two cases under consideration. The facts being largely similar the court finds it convenient to recite the facts of W.P.(C) No. 2594/2005 and thereafter answer the issues arising in the said writ petition. The decision of the court in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 2594/2005 will provide an effective answer to the issues arising in the connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 5033/2004.

W.P(C)No. 2594/2005

3. The writ petitioners, who are 17 in number, are presently working on ad hoc basis either as Assistant Enforcement Inspectors or as Enforcement Checkers. Their present tenure of service is upto such time that regular appointments in the said posts are made and it is the process initiated by the State for making such regular appointments which have been called into question in the present writ petition.

An earlier selection process was initiated by the