JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7. None appears on call the private respondent nos. 8 and 10 to 12.

2. It is seen that in the order dated 20.09.2017, the Court had recorded that notice on respondent no. 9 had been returned with postal remark that the ‘addressee expired’. Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 9 is struck off.

3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the engagement of the private respondent nos. 8 to 12 as trainee Sahayak, and also prayed for a direction to the APDCL authorities, i.e. respondent nos.2 to 7 to select and appoint the petitioner as Sahayak.

4. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he had successfully completed the course of Industrial Training Institute of Government of Assam (ITI for short) and had passed out the prescribed test in the