JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department representing the respondents no. 1, 2, & 3 and Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the State representing the respondent no. 4 as well as Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the private respondents no. 5 & 6.

2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present proceeding have presented a challenge to a select list dated 05.11.2016, issued towards selecting candidates in pursuance to a process of recruitment initiated vide an advertisement dated 22.07.2016, issued by the District Medical Officer (DMO), Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, for recruitment against 34 posts of Group ‘C’ MPW/MTS workers. The petitioners have further prayed that there being 2(two) clear vacant posts available in the said recruitment process, considering the merit position obtained by them in the selection process, they are required to be directed to be appointed against the said posts.

3. The facts requisite for consideration of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-

The DMO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, had issued an advertisement dated 22.07.2016, inviting applications for filling up of 34 numbers of posts of Group ‘C’ MPW/MTS under his establishment. The said advertisement had also spelt out the method of recruitment and also the eligibility conditions requisite for the candidates to apply against the said posts so advertised. It is contended by the petitioners that they having been found to satisfy the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, were permitted to appear in the selection process. It is contended by the petitioners that on conclusion of the selection process, the Deputy Commissioner, under whose supervision the selection process was conducted had published a select list for the various categories and thereafter, the DMO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, basing on the said select list had proceeded to effect appointment of the selected candidates. It is contended that in total 32 candidates were so appointed in pursuance to the said selection process.

The petitioners have contended that the respondent authorities while proceeding to make the selection process in question had not considered the merit position of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners herein having been placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 of the Waiting List against the Reserved Quota and the person so placed at Serial No. 1, having already in writing communicated that he is not interested to be appointed against the post so advertised, there being 2(two) clear vacant posts available, inasmuch as, only 32 candidates being appointed against the 34 posts advertised, the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered against the 2(two) available vacant posts. The petitioners have further contended that the respondent authorities have also effected appointment of a candidate on compassionate ground against the post so advertised vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, which is clearly not permissible. In view of the said position, the petitioners having made a claim for being recruited against the available 2(two) vacant posts, including the post utilized for effecting appointment on compassionate ground and such claim having not been duly considered, the present proceeding was instituted by the petitioners.

4. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 submits that 34 posts in different categories came to be advertised and in the advertisement, there was no specification that the posts so advertised would also include posts meant for Sports Category and for person claiming the same under the compassionate appointment scheme. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authorities had subsequently issued a corrigendum, which was no