JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Mr. D. Nath, learned senior Government Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. M. Shelim, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to 7 and Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.

2. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are represented by their counsels and had filed their affidavit contesting the contention made by the appellant.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2021 passed in WP (C) No. 2090/2016 whereby her challenge to the selection and appointments of the private respondents No. 4 to 7 to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) in the Office of Director, Assam Minorities Development Board was rejected by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed. The present writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner No. 1 in WP (C) No. 2215/2016. The writ petitioner No. 2 has not filed any appeal.

4. The essential facts which are noticed from the pleadings are that the appellant was working as an LDA on a fixed pay basis in the Assam Minorities Development Board since 01.05.2010. Initially she was paid salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 5,500/- in the month of April, 2011. The appellant claimed to have been discharging her duty regularly and continuously since then. Certificate in respect of her service continuity was also issued by the Director of the Board.

5. By an advertisement dated 18.09.2015 issued by the Director, Assam Minorities Development Board, namely, the respondent No. 3 herein invited applications for filling up vacancies in various posts including the posts of LDA. The appellant and another challenged by way of WP (C) No. 6678/2015, the said advertisement praying for quashing of that portion of the impugned advertisement dated 18.09.2015 insofar as it relates to the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (LDA). They had also prayed for regularization of their services in the post of LDA. This Court by an order dated 04.11.2015 passed in WP (C) No. 6678/2015 while issuing Notice directed the respondent authorities to permit the writ petitioners in the said writ petition including the appellant herein, to appear in the selection test and give weightage to their past experiences. The result of the selection process was however directed not to be declared without the leave of this Court. As permitted by this Court, the writ petitioners in WP (C) No. 6678/2015, where the appellant was the petitioner No. 1, appeared in the written test which was held on 20.12.2015. Subsequently, upon leave being granted by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2016 passed in I.A. No. 605/2016, the list of selected candidates for interview was published in the Assam Tribune fixing 26.02.2016 as a date for interview. The appellant however failed to clear the written test and was not selected for the interview. Although the appellant as the petitioner preferred I.A. No. 868/2016 challenging the impugned result of the written test, however in the meanwhile the viva voce test was completed and the private respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were appointed in the posts of Junior Assistant (earlier known as LDA) and who have since joined their services.

6. Being aggrieved, the WP (C) No. 2215/2016 was filed challenging the appointments of the private respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 with the following prayers:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued setting aside and quashing the entire selection process including the appointments of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 and or as to why a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to regularize of the services of the writ petitioners, as LDA in the office of the re