JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. 1. In W.P.(C) No. 1771 of 2001, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the selection of respondent No. 5, namely, Shri Shyamanta Hazarika to the post of lecturer in History made by the Special Body, Madhabdev College, Narayanpur, P.O.-Dikrong, Lakhimpur, Assam (in short called 'College') and also for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner to the post of lecturer in History in the said 'College' as per provisions of the Assam Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act' 1978). 2. In W.P.(C) No. 2148 of 2001 the petitioner has prayed for declaring the interview dated 07.03.2001 as well as the select list relating to the post of lecturer in History as illegal and also for a direction to the respondents for selecting the petitioner at first preference. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 1743 of 2005, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No. 11 Shri Bhaskar Doley selected in the interview dated 30.11.2004 to the post of lecturer in History in the College, with further prayer for direction to appoint the petitioner in his place. 4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of W.P.(C) No. 1771 of 2001 are that the petitioner belongs to Kaivartta Community (Scheduled Caste) and possesses M.A. Degree in History and has got University Grant Commission (for short 'UGC') norms. The College, in question is an aided College where out of total strength of 63 lecturers, 7 posts are to be reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates in reference to 'Act, 1978' whereas, there is only (01) one Scheduled Caste candidate out of (07) seven reserved posts, as such, a backlog of Scheduled Caste candidates exist in the College. Even Lakhimpur District Committee of Dr. Ambedkar Seswasevak Bahini (a Scheduled Caste Organization) though its Secretary had submitted on 25.11.2000 a representation before the Principal/Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said College, for filling up the vacancy of lecturer in the Scheduled Caste quota by observing roster system followed by another similar representation of Chairman, Scheduled Caste Development Board, North Lakhimpur Sub-Division to the Principal/Secretary and to the Special Body, College, on 28.11.2000. In an advertisement published on 5th January, 2001 in the 'Assam Tribune' inviting applications from candidates having U.G.C. norms to the post of Lecturer (sanctioned) in History in the said College, preference was to be given to the candidates having 'Tourism as Special Paper'. Since the said College authorities on earlier occasions had violated the provisions of the 'Act 1978,' in the matter of appointment, therefore, the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes by a letter dated 12.02.2001 had requested the Principal and Secretary, Special Body of College to keep in abeyance the said selection process till finalization of issue of reservation, however, despite such request, the Principal of the College without adhering to the reservation policy got conducted the selection and interview on 07.03.2001. Out of five candidates, the petitioner was only Scheduled Caste candidate who appeared in the said interview with an expectation that the State and its authorities including the College authorities shall observe the constitutional mandate of reservation policy however, when the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 5, a non Scheduled Caste candidate, was going to be appointed as Lecturer then he filed a representation dated 12.03.2001 before the Director of Higher Education, and when no heed was taken, he preferred the present writ petition. 5. Being aggrieved by the selection of respondent No. 5, Shri Shyamanta Hazarika, one Smt. Malina Boro has also preferred W.P.(C) No. 2148 of 2001, wherein, the Court was pleased to pass an order on 23.08.2001 in M.C. No. 1078 of 2001 that any appointment to the post of lecturer in History in the said College shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 6. The following submissions have been made for and on behalf of the petitioner Shri Nipen Das: (i) In the light of the observations in 1995 (2) GLJ 486 (Dhubri Zila Anusuchit Jati Parishad and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors.) this Court has observed that the provisions of 'Act-1978 and Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Rules, 1983 (here-in-after called as the 'Rules, 1983') are to be observed by the State and its authorities as they are duty bound to observe reservation policy in making appointments by way of direct recruitment for filling up the reserved posts of Scheduled Tribes (Hills) and Scheduled Tribes (Plain). (ii) As per Rule 4(6) of 'Rules, 1983', in case of non-availability of adequate number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes (Plains) for the appointment to fill up all the reserved vacancies, the appointing authority shall arrange to re-advertise for such loss of candidates only to fill up the unfilled reserved vacancies. If in the second advertisement also Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Hills) and Scheduled Tribes (Plains) are not available for the appointment to fill up all the reserved vacancies, the appointing authority with the prior concurrence of the concerned Department for the welfare of plains Tribes and Backward classes shall issue order deserving the vacancies giving due explanation for such de-reservation, if it is considers that the reserved vacancies cannot be left unfilled in the public interest. The reserved vacancies so de-reserved shall then be filled up; by appointing other candidates in order of preference as indicated in the list. Rule 4(7) further provides that any vacancy de-reserved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sub-Rule (6) above shall be filled up by general candidate but the reservation shall be carried forward to the subsequent year of appointments, till the reservation quota is filled up by appointing Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (Hills) and Scheduled Tribes (Plains) candidate, in whose favour the reservation stood in the roster. 7. The following submissions have been made on behalf of Dr. Y.K. Phukan, learned senior counsel appearing mainly for 'Special Body', Principal and Secretary of said College and for the general candidate Sri Shyamanta Hazarika. (iii) In paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it was indicated that the 'College' was maintaining twenty (20) point roster to fill up the backlog of appointment of SC/ST candidates. In advertisement, sometimes it is mentioned that the post in-question is reserved for SC/ST and sometimes that the post is meant for general category, so that, all types of candidates including SC/ST candidates could apply to the post since the said 'College' was started in the year 1964, however, the 'Act, 1987' came later; therefore, for the period of 14 years (1978-1964) the vacancies were filled up on merits without reservation and when these teachers were gradually retiring, the College authorities are trying to fill up the vacancies by roster system. The teachers, namely, Sri Ramesh Hazarika (Economics Department), Smti. The teachers, namely, Sri Ramesh Hazarika (Economics Department), Smti. Chitrali Hazarika Department of Philosophy) Sri Pravin Kumar Deuri (Department of Botany), Sri Rana Prasad Deuri (Department of Political Science), Sri Bolin Deuri (Department of History) were all belonging to SC/ST category. However, as indicated in para 4 of affidavit in opposition that five Professors including the Head of Department of History had suggested by a letter to the Principal that a candidate having specialization (diploma or its equivalent) in "travel and tourism" should be appointed in the Department of History of the said College. The contents of such undated letter enclosed as Annexure-I as referred in para 4(a) of affidavit-in-opposition are quoted as below: 4.(a).- Professor B. Goswami. the then Head of the Department of History and all other teachers to the department, namely, Prof, G. Saikia, Prof. M. Mahanta, Prof. B. Goswami and Prof. B. Deuri suggested to the Principal, Madhabdeb College, Narayanpur by a letter that a strict preference to candidates with specialization (diploma or its equivalent) in "travel and tourism" should be given in the advertisement for the next post of lecturer in the Department of History, Madhabdev College. The aforesaid Professors made this suggestion in view of the fact that the revised University (the University of Dibrugarh) syllabus had prescribed to the students as majors (in History) a full paper of 100 marks on "travel and tourism" and the History Department of Madhabdev College, will, according to the Professors, certainly gain immensely if the next vacant post be filled in by a competent man having specialization in the field of tourism. Otherwise, the students of the departments will suffer infinitely. (ii) In view of such recommendation, it was categorically mentioned in the advertisement dated 05.11.2001 that preference would be given to the candidates having "tourism" as Special paper. (iii)The marks obtained by the five candidates in the interview dated 07.03.2001 are given below: SI. No. Name Total marks obtain 1. Ms. Bina Das 33.1 2. Syamanta Hazarika 43.6 1st preference. (Diploma in Tourism) 3. Ms. Tarali Devi 36.6 4. Shri Nipen Das 31.5 5. Ms. (iii)The marks obtained by the five candidates in the interview dated 07.03.2001 are given below: SI. No. Name Total marks obtain 1. Ms. Bina Das 33.1 2. Syamanta Hazarika 43.6 1st preference. (Diploma in Tourism) 3. Ms. Tarali Devi 36.6 4. Shri Nipen Das 31.5 5. Ms. Malina Bore 40.8 2nd preference (iv) The Special body of the College in its meeting dated 08.03.2001 had decided (in terms of resolution No. 4) to appoint Shri Shyamanta Hazarika by virtue of his securing 1st position in the interview dated 07.03.2001 as he was the only candidate having diploma in Tourism. In para 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition the College authorities while admitting backlog of SC quota have shown their intention for filling up the backlog as far as possible in terms of the resolution No. 5 dated 24.11.2000 adopted by the Special Body. For convenience the contents of said resolution is provided as below: Resolution No. 5: Today's meeting has given the responsibility to the Principal and Secretary to make an advertisement for the appointment of a lecturer in the Department of History. It may be mentioned that though there is backlog for SC yet as the post in the matter of previous appointment in the History Department was reserved for ST, as such, this sitting resolved to make the (present) post open instead of making it reserved and to make the advertisement that "Tourism" will be made a Special paper. In today's meeting it is resolved that the next vacancy after the present one will be reserved for SC candidate. (v) The eligible candidates were supposed to apply and since the said selection in - question was for the purpose of selecting a general candidate, therefore, the respondent No. 5 was selected on merit by the Special Body and since the petitioner without challenging the advertisement in question had participated in the selection process, therefore, he cannot turn back now to challenge the outcome of the selection/interview when he was not selected to the post, whereas, the respondent No. 5 was duly selected and has been working, therefore, his appointment even if improper, since made long back pursuant to a selection has not to be disturbed in view of the observations of Supreme Court in [2001] 2 SCR 18 , (Buddhi Nath Choudhury and Ors. v. Abahi Kumar and Ors.) where though the appointments of candidates acknowledged as improper for their lacking required experience (at the time of initial recruitment) were not disturbed on the ground that they could have acquired requisite experience by working on the posts for over a decade. (vi) The proper and necessary parties, e.g., 'National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' & 'Dr. Ambedkar Seswasevak Bahini' were neither impleaded nor were made parties, (vii) The respondent No. 5 bonafidely participated in the interview and by virtue of his possessing 'Diploma in Tourism', he was treated to have fulfilled the criteria and the requirement of the advertisement dated 05.01.2001, therefore, preference was rightly given to him as a candidate holding Special Paper in Tourism in M.A. (History) course since in future the Special Body of the College has indicated to fulfill the backlog of Scheduled Caste quota, therefore, the present selection of Shri Shyamanta Hazarika cannot be set aside, (viii) In terms of his prayer the petitioner has since been considered by the Selection Committee, therefore, he cannot make any further prayer to that aspect and since the petitioner has deliberately taken chance of participating in the selection process and interview without any protest there on becoming unsuccessful, he cannot question the outcome of the selection in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in [2000] 1 SCR 783 (Suneeta Aggarwal v. State of Haryana and Ors.). 8. According to the petitioner as indicate in para 6 of his rejoinder affidavit, diploma in tourism has no relevance to the subject of History. Diploma in 'Travel and Tourism' could neither be treated nor equated at par with Special Paper as a subject of Tourism in M.A. (History) to meet the requirement of the advertisement. According to the petitioner observance of reservation policy, provisions of the 'Act, 1978' and the 'Rule, 1983' are the Constitutional mandate and for adjudication of issue of reservation policy, the relevant necessary parties were already arrayed as respondents in the writ petition which are sufficient to adjudicate the main issue in-question of reservation policy which has openly been violated by the 'College'/respondent and its authorities, therefore, the selection dehors the reservation policy is treated to be void ab initio. The letter of the five professors said to have recommended for giving preference to a candidate having Special Paper in 'Travel and Tourism' is undated and even if it is treated to be of vital important in the eye of the College and its authorities, then in that case the same cannot be acknowledge and given weight and it shall be non est as it has not been made part of the record. Undisputedly in any case, the respondent No. 5 had not opted and had studied 'Travel and Tourism' as a Special paper in M.A. (History). The resolution dated 24.12.2002, said to have been passed by the Special Body of 'College' has specifically acknowledged the backlog of Scheduled Caste quota in the College, despite this the Special Body was not empowered to ignore the reservation policy and to resolve to keep open the post of lecturer in History in question for general candidate by prescribing tourism as a Special paper in the advertisement for reasons best known to the Special Body. Such resolution too could not carry weight and legal force as the same has not been made part of the original record. The Special Body of the College is not competent to incorporate any of such condition and prescribe any criteria or eligibility on the academic side dehors the constitutional mandate of reservation policy regarding the appointment of lecturer in a particular subject or the 'College' and once the Special Body in its resolution dated 24.12.2000 has clearly acknowledged and admitted the deficiencies and clear cut backlog of Scheduled Caste quota/teacher, the Sri Shyamanta Hazarika, a general candidate could not have been appointed as teacher in the College. 9. Smti. Malina Boro by filing writ petition No. 2148 of 2001 has also challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5/Shri Shyamanta Hazarika as lecturer in History in the said College and in support of her case following submissions have been advanced. (i) The Principal of the said College in the said advertisement has indicated preference to be given to a candidate possessing tourism as Special paper in M.A. (History) only to accommodate the Respondent No. 5 who had neither opted nor studied 'Tourism' as a Special paper in M.A. (History) but was only a diploma holder in 'Travel and Tourism' which cannot be treated or equated as a Special paper. In fact, there are three Special paper in History, namely, (i) Ancient History, (ii) Medieval History and (iii) Modern History. The Principal of the College in his affidavit in opposition has categorically stated that the Respondent No. 5 has been selected because he was having tourism as Special paper in M.A. (History) as required by the advertisement as also revealed from the report of the Selection Committee, whereas, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a candidate qualified in Medieval History and Modem History is not illegible for appointment as Professor in Ancient History in view of the decision of Supreme Court in (1977) 6 SCC 365 : Rajpal Verma and Ors. v. Chancellor of Meerut University and Ors. (ii) The Selection Committee has awarded three marks to the Respondent No. 5 only on the basis of a certificate said to have been issued to him by the Principal of Madhabdev College, but on his own showing Respondent No. 5 in his affidavit-in-opposition has revealed that he was working in another College namely, Kherajkhar College for a period of 2 years 7 months. Shri Nabin Bora, one of the member of the Selection Committee is said to have also certified that the experience certificate produced by Shri Shyamanta Hazarika (the Respondent No. 5) at the time of interview was issued by the Principal of Madhabdev College hence these three marks to the Respondent No. 5 for teaching experience ought not to have been awarded, more so, when as per the guideline (Annexure-H) one mark could be awarded for the teaching experience for one complete year, but contrary to this the Selection Committee had awarded three marks to the Respondent No. 5 against so called teaching experience of 2 years 7 months as claimed by him. (iii) The Selection Committee has awarded 12.6 marks out of 15 in the interview for the knowledge in the subject i.e., 88% marks in order to place Shri Shyamanta Hazarika at first preference defeating the cause of writ petitioner. (iii) The Selection Committee has awarded 12.6 marks out of 15 in the interview for the knowledge in the subject i.e., 88% marks in order to place Shri Shyamanta Hazarika at first preference defeating the cause of writ petitioner. Whereas, in major subjects which is considered as knowledge in the subjects Respondent No. 5 had secured only about 41% marks, (iv) Prior to the present selection in question, in earlier selection also for another post in the same College held on 21.04.2000 in order to accommodate one local candidate, namely, Sri Balin Deuri, the Selection Committee had illegally placed the petitioner at second preference with an assurance to accommodate her against the present post in question. (v) The Selection Committee has arbitrarily deprived the petitioner for three times consecutively on extraneous consideration. 10. During the course of hearing an original letter dated 09.09.2001 (addressed to none) was place before the Court said to have been written by Shri Nabin Borah regarding the experience certificate of Shri Shyamanta Hazarika issued in the name of Principal Madhabdev College. After perusal of such original letter the same was returned to learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. A Photostat copy of another certificate dated 05.03.2001 said to have been issued by Shri Hem Chandra Goswami, Principal, Kherajkhat College certifying that Shri Shyamanta Hazarika was teaching in his College from 01.08.1998 was presented before the Court, however, all these aspects if taken together into consideration serious controversies would arise, more so, when the experience certificate dated 05.03.2001 pertaining to Mr. Shyamanta Hazarika was neither produced nor placed available on the record. The doubts about two affidavits sworn by Shri Nabin Borah (who got himself impleaded as a respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2148 of 2001) have also arisen. It is also being noted that Shri Nabin Borah, sometimes, refers his name as 'Nabin Chandra Bora' and sometimes refers as 'Nabin Borah,' more so, he has changed his earlier stand by way of subsequent affidavit. Learned Counsel Mr. Dutta appearing for Smti. Malina Boro, has, however, vehemently pursing before this Court (by an independent investigating agency) for probing forgery, fabrication and fraud regarding experience certificate issued in favour of Mr. Shyamanta Hazarika as well as regarding circumstances and mystery behind change of the stand by Mr. Learned Counsel Mr. Dutta appearing for Smti. Malina Boro, has, however, vehemently pursing before this Court (by an independent investigating agency) for probing forgery, fabrication and fraud regarding experience certificate issued in favour of Mr. Shyamanta Hazarika as well as regarding circumstances and mystery behind change of the stand by Mr. Nabin Borah and consequent upon such inquiry to start legal action against the wrong persons in reference to the outcome of the inquiry. 11. According to the respondents, the Respondent No. 5, namely, Shri Shyamanta Hazarika was finally selected on his merits and, therefore, a candidate who took a chance to participate in the selection process and the interview and was ultimately unsuccessful cannot turn back to challenge the selection process and this Court has not to assess the relative merits and performance of the candidates. This Court is not to sit over the subjective satisfaction of the Selection Committee, as, the assessment of merits of a candidate is the work of experts of the Selection Committee. Moreso, when the said selection and the Constitution of the Selection Committee were not challenged. The Court cannot substitute its opinion and devise or prescribe, criteria and parameters for evaluating fitness of a candidate for a particular post in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in (1993 I LLJ 215 SC (Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C. Shukla and Ors.) where it was held that Court cannot assume the role of Selection Committee and evaluate fitness of a candidate for a particular post. According to the respondents, in respect of appointment and selection the Court while making a judicial review have not to evaluate relative merits of a candidate/The Respondent No. 5 has been appointed long back by virtue of his having been found at top in the selection process then even if the selection and appointment is improper, the same need not to be disturbed. Since the Respondent No. 5 was appointed long back pursuant to a selection, therefore, the settled issue cannot be unsettled in view of the Buddhi Nath Choudhury (supra). According to the respondents in view of the above observations Smti. Malina Boro has no case. 12. In Writ Petition No. 1743 of 2005, petitioner Smti. Malina Boro has challenged the appointment of Shri Bhaskar Doley as lecturer in History in the said College. According to the respondents in view of the above observations Smti. Malina Boro has no case. 12. In Writ Petition No. 1743 of 2005, petitioner Smti. Malina Boro has challenged the appointment of Shri Bhaskar Doley as lecturer in History in the said College. According to her, despite having secured second position consecutively even third time in the selections she was not appointed. According to the writ petitioner in reference to an advertisement dated 11.03.2000 the post she participated in the interview held on 21.04.2000 and despite her performance being excellent one candidate namely, Shri Bolin Deuri working in the College as temporary lecturer managed his appointment by creating influence over the College authorities, however, keeping in view her performance, the Selection Committee had assured her to adjust against the posts falling vacant in the month of December, 2000 itself or against the post falling vacant subsequently, however, the selection was held on 07.03.2001 but this time also another candidate, namely, Shri Shyamanta Hazarika was selected on extraneous considerations. In the meantime Shri Bolin Deuri selected through the first selection dated 21.04.2000 has resigned, consequently the petitioner by virtue of her placement at second preference submitted a representation dated 26.04.2004 to the Principal of the College. The Governing Body in its meeting dated 28.04.2004 had unanimously expressed that she needs sympathy but it was irony of fate that even in subsequent selection held on 30.11.2004, she was placed at 2nd preference, again, thereby, selecting one Shri Bhaskar Doley, a local candidate who has created great influence over the Chairman, and Principal of the College by raising an issue that despite large number of Mishing students studying in the College, no Mishing Lecturer is appointed. The Mishing Autonomous Council too had submitted representation and the Chairman of the Governing Body of College, a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Bihpuria Constituency with a view to gain favour in the Assembly Election was determined to get Shri Bhaskar Doley appointed which in fact was got one absolutely on the basis of favoritism and on extraneous consideration. Even two Mishing Lecturers were invited as members of the 'Selection Committee', out of them one namely, Shri Gulap Doley was a close relative of Shri Bhaskar Doley. Even two Mishing Lecturers were invited as members of the 'Selection Committee', out of them one namely, Shri Gulap Doley was a close relative of Shri Bhaskar Doley. Writ petitioner claimed that this time she secured 22.85 marks whereas, Shri Doley only 22.15 in academic qualification but in the interview, the Selection Committee intentionally awarded more marks to Shri Doley, whereas, the writ petitioner was given on 17.1 marks on the other hand 21.9 marks to Shri Doley just to select him at 1st preference. It has further been stated that the Selection Committee awarded two marks to Shri Doley in respect of teaching experience, whereas, he did not even possess teaching experience, more so, the certificate produced by him was a fabricated one, accordingly two marks for teaching experience could not have been given to Shri Doley. So much so, Shri Nabin Borah, one of the members of the 'Selection Committee' had already filed an affidavit which goes in favour of the petitioner indicating that the selection of Respondent No. 11 was illegal, however, for reasons best known to Shri Nabin Borah he has changed his affidavit denying the earlier stand, therefore, the earlier stand and contents of Shri Nabin Borah have to be taken into consideration. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the original records. It appears that many of the documents referred by the learned Counsel for the parties are not part of record and not placed in original on the record. The recommendation letter of (five) professors of Madhabdev College indicating preference to be given to a candidate possessing 'Tourism' as a Special paper in M.A. (History) was not bearing any date and was also not the part of record. The holder of diploma in "Travel and Tourism" could neither be equated nor treated as 'Special Paper' and cannot satisfy the requirement of advertisement said to have been possessed by Shyamanta Hazarika as no document, or verdict has been produced indicating Diploma in particular subject can be treated as Special Paper whereas, in view of Raj Paul Verma (supra) the diploma in 'Travel and Tourism' cannot be treated as Special paper. The certificate dated 05.03.2001 said to have been issued by Shri Hem Chandra Goswami, Principal, Kherajkhat College to Shri Shyamanta Hazarika was not produced in original. The certificate dated 05.03.2001 said to have been issued by Shri Hem Chandra Goswami, Principal, Kherajkhat College to Shri Shyamanta Hazarika was not produced in original. The two conflicting affidavits, the original letter of Shri Nabin Bora dated 09.09.2001 said to have indicated that Shri Shyamanta Hazarika has produced experience certificate of Principal of Madhabdev College as well as the resolution No. 5 dated 24.12.2000 were also not produced in original before the Court for reasons best known to the College authorities. Admittedly, the backlog of Scheduled Caste quota was existing in the said College but it appears the advertisement dated 05.01.2000 has deliberately did not disclose to the public so as to know that the vacancy is for general candidate or reserved category candidate. In the garb of such advertisement, the petitioner has bonafidely applied and participated in the selection, however, no satisfactory justification for not fulfilling the backlog of Scheduled Caste quota or other reserved category quota has been forthcoming. Respondent authorities as well as the College authorities could not explain as to why the reservation policy and constitutional mandate of the 'Act, 1978' as well as the provisions of 'Rules, 1983' were not followed despite repeated reminders by the petitioner, Director of National Commission for SC/ST as well as the State authorities. The State and the College authorities have not only failed to observe reservation policy but have acted in such a manner that their conduct is not free from suspicion and documents referred and relied upon in the Selection of Mr. Shyamanta Hazarika are also not free from disputes and controversies. In the facts and circumstances, the said selection cannot be said to be fair and legally sustainable. Therefore, the selection of Shri Shyamanta Hazarika in question for lack of non observance of reservation policy alone to fill up backlog of reserved category candidate in the said College is not legally justifiable and becomes void ab initio. However, this Court is not to make a judicial review of comparison assessment of candidates, their merits and performance in the interview and cannot sit over the subjective satisfaction of the experts/members, of the Selection Body. 14. However, this Court is not to make a judicial review of comparison assessment of candidates, their merits and performance in the interview and cannot sit over the subjective satisfaction of the experts/members, of the Selection Body. 14. For the reasons and observations made above, the selection of lecturer in History in the Madhabdev College is set aside and accordingly Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2148 of 2001 of Shri Nipen Das is partly allowed, consequently Shri Shyamanta Hazarika shall have no right to the post and salary. Since he had already served in post as lecturer (History), therefore, salary of post shall not be recovered from him. However, this Court cannot issue mandamus to make appointment in favour of any candidate. Therefore, no favourable order can be issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The State authorities have to impress the College authorities that they have to come forward to conduct fresh selection for the said post of lecturer in History by clearly indicating in the widely circulated advertisement, that the post of lecturer in History is for reserve category candidates so that not only petitioner but others reserve category candidates from open market/public at large may get chance to participate in the Selection. The College authorities are bound to ensure filling up reserve quota and the Selection shall have to be made expeditiously by observing reservation policy prevailing in the State and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be given to Smti. Malina Boro, therefore, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1743 of 2005 is dismissed.