JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondents, who has also produced the record. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of advertisement notice dated 20.02.2015 in respect of the post of Record Arranger in the office of Advocate General, Assam and further seeks a direction for re-advertisement of the said post. Case of the petitioner is that she is a matriculate and is therefore eligible to be appointed in the post of Record Arranger. An advertisement notice was published in the newspaper “The Sentinal” on 20.02.2015 inviting applications to fill up of one vacancy in the post of Lower Division Assistant and two vacancies in the post of Record Arranger. The notice was issued by the Advocate General, Assam. Since the notice was published in an English language newspaper, it did not receive wide publicity and petitioner residing in a village did not know about such advertisement. She could come to know about the advertisement only from one Smt. Aysha Siddika who resides in a nearby village when she got her call letter for appearing in the written test for the post of Record Arranger which was held on 31.05.2015. Petitioner could gather that the examination was conducted in the Office of the Advocate General by the staff of the said office and that there were examinees who were closely related to the persons conducting the examination. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. Contention of the petitioner is that advertisement for the selection process was not given wide publicity, thereby depriving genuine and eligible candidates like the petitioner from participation. Selection was conducted by persons closely related to the candidates. Thus the selection process was conducted in a most perfunctory manner which calls for intervention by the Court. Respondents have filed a common affidavit through Sri Rabindra Ch Das. Allegation of the petitioner has been denied. It is stated that the advertisement was issued in two local daily newspapers, one in English and one in vernacular. Selection was conducted by an independent Selection Committee constituted by the Advocate General, Assam as per Government norms. Chairman of the Selection Committee was the Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary to the Govt. It is stated that the advertisement was issued in two local daily newspapers, one in English and one in vernacular. Selection was conducted by an independent Selection Committee constituted by the Advocate General, Assam as per Government norms. Chairman of the Selection Committee was the Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department and the other two Members of the Selection Committee were Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. Selection was made on the basis of merit. None of the staff of the Office of the Advocate General was connected with the selection process. Petitioner did not apply and consequently did not participate in the selection. Therefore, she has no locus standi to question the validity of the selection process. Earlier one Sri Jayanta Saikia had filed a writ petition for quashing of notice dated 20.02.2015 which was registered as WP(C) No. 3039/2015. The said writ petition was summarily dismissed by this Court on 29.05.2015, holding that there was no merit in the writ petition. Likewise, respondents seek dismissal of the present writ petition. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. Mr. Chaliha, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the advertisement was published in an English language daily newspaper and that too only on one occasion, people from the rural areas did not have notice of the said selection process. As the selection process was not given wide publicity, many eligible candidates including the petitioner could not respond to the said advertisement. This was done deliberately so that relations of some of the officials of the Office of the Advocate General could be selected. Therefore, selection was pre-determined, he submits. On the other hand, Mr. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate submits from the record that the advertisement was published in two newspapers pursuant to which a large number of candidates had responded. Selection was conducted by an independent Selection Committee in a fair and impartial manner. Thereafter, the candidates were selected following which appointment letters were issued to the three selected candidates. The selected candidates have since joined and are now working. Mr. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate has also allowed to Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner to go through the record. In his reply, Mr. Thereafter, the candidates were selected following which appointment letters were issued to the three selected candidates. The selected candidates have since joined and are now working. Mr. Bhagawati, learned Govt. Advocate has also allowed to Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner to go through the record. In his reply, Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the two candidates selected for the post of Record Arranger, Smt. Dalimi Das, is the daughter of Sri Rabindra Ch. Das who has sworn the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. This clearly discloses personal bias which has vitiated the selection. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the record produced. From the record, it is seen that one post of LDA and two posts of Record Arranger under the establishment of Advocate General, Assam, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati were created which were thereafter notified to be filled up through open selection. The advertisement was published in the form of a notice in the English language daily newspaper “The Sentinal” on 20.02.2015. It was also published in the Assamese language daily newspaper “Janasadharan” on 20.02.2015. On 30.05.2015 a Selection Committee was constituted by the learned Advocate General, Assam with the following members:- 1. Sri Piyali Kalita, Joint LR and Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department Chairman 2. Sri B. J. Talukdar, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam Member Secretary. 3. Sk. Nur Mahammad, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam Member. 24 candidates had applied for the post of Lower Division Assistant and 41 candidates had applied for the two posts of Record Arranger. Written test was held on 31.05.2015 and viva voce test on 21.06.2015. 18 candidates out of 24 appeared for the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA) and 25 candidates out of 41 appeared for the two posts of Record Arranger in the written test. On the basis of marks obtained in the written test, 4 candidates were called to appear in the viva voce test for the post of LDA and 8 candidates were called to appear in the viva voce test for the two posts of Record Arranger. Viva voce test was held on 21.06.2015. Sri Kailash Baruah, who secured the highest total marks, was selected for the post of LDA. Viva voce test was held on 21.06.2015. Sri Kailash Baruah, who secured the highest total marks, was selected for the post of LDA. On the other hand, the two candidates securing highest marks for the posts of Record Arranger, namely, Md. Ashif Hussain and Smt. Dalimi Das were selected. Selection list was published on 25.06.2015. Simultaneously, appointment orders were issued by the learned Advocate General on 25.06.2015. The appointed candidates joined on 26.06.2015. From the above, this Court is unable to find any major infirmity in the selection process to warrant interference. If the selection process broadly conforms to the requirement of fairness, impartiality and transparency and follows the laid down procedure, a microscopic scrutiny of the same is to be avoided. Petitioner’s contention that the advertisement was published in only one English language newspaper has turned out to be incorrect. It was published in two newspapers, one in English and one in Assamese. Further contention of the petitioner that the advertisement did not receive wide publicity is also untenable because as per the statement of the petitioner herself candidate from the neighbouring village had responded to the said advertisement and had received call letter. Being a relative of a serving employee in the establishment where the selection takes place cannot be a disability of an intending candidate. Yes it is true that in such a case the relative should not participate in the selection process. But as can be seen from the record, in the present case, the Selection Committee comprised of the Joint Legal Remembrancer and Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department and two Additional Senior Govt. Advocates of the office of the learned Advocate General, Assam. It is not the case of the learned petitioner that any of their relatives had participated in the selection. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Record produced by Mr. Bhagawati is returned back.