M. Ramakrishna, C. J. — This appeal is presented by the appellant, Mr. Nazimmuddin Mazumdar, who was respondent No.5 in the Civil Rule No.4409 of 1994, presented before this Court. The writ petitioner in the above civil rule had called in question the appointment of the appellant herein as Vaccinator and NPW trainee, made by the Director of Health Services, Assam, Guwahati, in the impugned order dated 5th May, 1993, Annexure A to the writ petition. The main grounds of attack in the writ petition was that although the competent authority, viz, the Director of Health Services, had made selection of meritorious candidates, the name of the writ petitioner being at serial No. 1 and that of the 5th respondent being at serial No.3 of the select list, at the time of issuing order of appointment, the Joint Director of Health Services, ignoring the writ petitioner who was at serial No.l issued order of appointment to the contesting respondent. Hence the writ petitioner seeking to quash that order of appointment on the above grounds. Mr. Babul Das who was standing at serial No.2 of the select list had no grievance as he was already appointed. This was contested by the appellant herein by filing a counter. 2. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, referring to the facts of the case, allowed the writ petition holding that the impugned order dated 5th May, 1993 appointing the 5th respondent in the writ petition to the post referred to above, ignoring the 1st rank held by the petitioner in the select list was illegal. Thus by an order made on 24th May, 1995, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. 4. Thus by an order made on 24th May, 1995, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. 4. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and the question of law referred to in the course of the order by the learned Single Judge, we thought of doing justice to both sides inasmuch as since by virtue of the impugned order of appointment, the appellant was already holding the post of the Vaccinator, we thought, if it was possible to maintain that post instead of disturbing him by virtue of the order made by the learned Single Judge and in order to ascertain about this possibility, we directed the Director of Health Services to be present in the Court so that both the persons could be accomodated in the posts of Vaccinator. 5. Mr. SS Dey, the learned Govt. Advocate, submits that by virtue of the order given by the Court on 2.12.97, the Director of Health Services did appear before the Court though the Court did not note his presence on that date as the matter was adjourned since the Court was hearing certain other matter. However, Mr. Dey submits that according to the information furnished by the Director, within a period of four weeks, the respondents would be able to accommodate the appellant to the post of Vaccinator. This submission of Mr. SS Dey, the learned Govt.-Advocate is recorded. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is no need to go into the merits of this case and to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge since it is unnecessary as on today for the above reasons. 7. Mr. NH Mazbarbhuyan, the learned counsel for the appellant, is agreeable to wait for four weeks and get the fruits of this order inasmuch as the Director is hereby directed to accommodate the appellant in a post of Vaccinator within a period of four weeks. 8. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. SS Dey so as to enable him in taking steps for implementation of this order. 9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above order. Parties to bear their own costs.