JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel for the APDCL. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was provisionally engaged as a outsourced Sahayak in the new constructed 33/KV Dhupdhara Sub-Station on consolidated pay of Rs. 6000/- per month vide office order No. 153 dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure-3). Following the appointment order, the petitioner was not allowed to join the post on account of difficulties created from unforeseen quarters. He therefore vide his letter dated 14.10.2015 submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 to allow him join temporarily under his establishment. Thereafter in partial modification of the earlier office order dated 16.09.2015, the respondent No. 3 issued office order No. 168 dated 31.10.2015 (Annexure VI) provisionally engaging the petitioner under the same terms and conditions but however posting him at Goalpara Electrical Sub-Division. The petitioner submitted his joining report to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Goalpara Electrical Sub-Division on 02.11.2015 stating that he has joined the post. The respondent No. 3 however to the surprise of the petitioner issued a corrigendum vide office order No. 171 dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-VIII) whereby it was indicated that the petitioner had been wrongly shown to be engaged as outsourced Sahayak vide the office order dated 16.09.2015. In fact, it was the respondent No. 6, who was to be appointed against the post instead of the petitioner. The respondent No. 6 and the petitioner shared the same name. Accordingly the corrigendum showing the appointment of the respondent No. 6 was issued. 3. Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities having issued the appointment order in favour of the petitioner cannot simply cancel the appointment by issuing a corrigendum inasmuch as the petitioner had indeed submitted his application for appointment as outsourced Sahayak and there is no mandatory requirement of holding an interview or any selection process. In fact the petitioner on earlier occasion had also been appointed as outsourced Sahayak and had served for about 5 (five) years. In that view of the matter, he submits that the petitioner should be allowed to join the post to which he is appointed and the corrigendum dated 16.11.2015 should be set aside. 4. Against the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 03.08.2016. Mr. In that view of the matter, he submits that the petitioner should be allowed to join the post to which he is appointed and the corrigendum dated 16.11.2015 should be set aside. 4. Against the writ petition, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 03.08.2016. Mr. A.D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition submits that the appointment or engagement of the petitioner as per the office order dated 16.09.2015 and subsequently vide office order dated 31.10.2015 was only a mistake since both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 have the same name. The mistake was only detected subsequently. While the petitioner did not appear in the interview which was held prior to the issuance of the appointment orders, the respondent No. 6 namely Shri. Dipankar Das son of Arna Das appeared for the interview and his name found place in the merit list and was thereafter approved by the competent authority for engagement. Therefore only for the reason that a mistake was made, the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the appointment which otherwise was for the respondent No. 6. He further submits that the petitioner has not questioned the interview process and has not claimed that his name appeared in the merit list and therefore, under such circumstance, the writ petition cannot be entertained. In order words, he submits that the petitioner has no legitimate right to be enforced through the instant writ proceeding. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties. It is noticed that the petitioner has also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the official respondents wherein the petitioner besides mentioning that there is no requirement for holding a formal interview for engagement as an outsourced Sahayak has not disputed the fact that he did not face the interview and his name found place in the merit list. 6. In that view of the matter and upon considering the materials available on record in its entity, I do not find that the petitioner has any substantive right to be enforced. Therefore the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. 6. In that view of the matter and upon considering the materials available on record in its entity, I do not find that the petitioner has any substantive right to be enforced. Therefore the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Before parting with the judgment, it is noticed that the petitioner prior to the engagement in issue was engaged by the official respondents for about 5 (five) years and therefore, in the event of the official respondents further require the services Sahayaks under their jurisdiction, the petitioner should also be considered for engagement in view of his past experience and in accordance with law. 8. No cost.