JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate assisted by Ms. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the State. None appears for the private respondents.

2. We have gone through the records as to the reason why the respondents are not present before this Court.

3. The respondent No. 1, who was represented by a counsel whose name is also reflected in the cause list has not appeared before the Court today. Similarly, respondent No. 2 was also represented by a counsel whose name is also reflected in the cause list has not appeared today. Since they have not opted to appear before this Court inspite of their names being shown, there is no legal impediment to proceed with the matter.

4. As regards the respondent No. 3, the Office note dated 15.02.2022 mentions that notice can be deemed to have been served upon respondent No. 3.

5. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that inspite of absence of the private respondents, the matter can be disposed of at this stage.

6. Coming to the facts of the case as may be relevant for the disposal of this appeal, it is noticed that the State authorities i.e., the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Assam had initiated a recruitment process for appointment to 10 Nos. of posts of Pharmacists along with other posts of Laboratory Technician, Staff Nurse, ANM and Dresser vide Advertisement dated 04.02.2006. The said Advertisement was issued in respect of those candidates who were registered with the Employment Exchange.

7. In other words, the said Advertisement was not by way of general public advertisement inviting applications from all the eligible candidates, but for only those candidates who were registered with the employment exchange.

8. Be that as it may, the present appellants who were sponsored along with 95 candidates including respondent Nos. 1 & 3 took part in the recruitment process. The present eight appellants along with two others were selected for appointment to the 10 posts of Pharmacists and accordingly were appointed vide order dated 13.07.2006.

9. It appears that not only the said 10 posts of Pharmacists but other posts advertised along with pharmacist were also filled up in the same year with which we are not concerned with, as the present appeal is confined only to the post of Pharmacist.

10. It appears that after the appellants were appointed, their appointments were put to challenge by the three writ petitioners, who are the private respondents herein, in W.P.(C) No. 3619/2006 and this Court declared that the appointment of the private respondents therein, the appellant herein, cannot be legally sustained and accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the authorities to go for a fresh selection process by re-advertising the posts in terms of the Rule 13 of the Pharmacist Service Rules, 1986.

11. The reasons for allowing the said writ petition are as follows.

The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held that the Assam Pharmacist Service Rules, 1986 which lay down the method for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist were not followed.

Secondly, the learned Single Judge also found that the said selection process was confined only to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was not open to all the candidates which was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

12. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, in (1996) 6 SCC 216, which declared that restricting the selection only to the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange is improper and wider competition should be ensured by publication of the recruitment notice in newspapers with wide circulation as to be consistent with the requirements of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitut