JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A K Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. S R Baruah, the learned Government advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Also heard Mr. R K Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, i.e., APSC. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent authorities, who are in the process of appointing eligible candidates against the 32 vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Fishery Department of the State. 3. Mr. A K Purkayastha, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the petitioners in fact were working as District Engineering Consultants under the Director of Fisheries under the AACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2007 up to 31.03.2015. The petitioners having sufficient experience and knowledge due to their appointment as District Engineering Consultants, should be given due weight age by the APSC, while the State respondents were filling up the 32 vacant posts of Junior Engineers (Civil). 4. Mr. A K Purkayastha, submits that initially there was some impediment for considering the petitioners against the advertised posts but pursuant to the intervention of this Court, the petitioners have been declared to be amongst the eligible candidates for filling up the posts in question. He, however, submits that keeping in mind the experience of the petitioners for about 9 years in the Engineering field of the State Fisheries Department, the respondents should be directed to take into account their experience while being given due weight age in the selection process. 5. Against the writ petition, the respondent No. 3, APSC have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, they have contended that the APSC has duly considered the case of the petitioner by allowing them to participate in the selection process after due relaxation accorded by the State respondents. He submits that in fact the advertisement published on 02.04.2015 clearly provides that preference will be given to those candidates having experience in execution/supervision of civil works under Fishery Department. He, therefore, submits that if the petitioners can overcome the written examination, the APSC would definitely consider their experience as provided in the advertisement itself. 6. He submits that in fact the advertisement published on 02.04.2015 clearly provides that preference will be given to those candidates having experience in execution/supervision of civil works under Fishery Department. He, therefore, submits that if the petitioners can overcome the written examination, the APSC would definitely consider their experience as provided in the advertisement itself. 6. The State respondents have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition in the matter and by the affidavit of the respondent No. 5 filed on 05.04.2017, it has been contended that the petitioners were earlier appointed only on contractual basis for a limited duration and upon completion of the project, their services to ultimately terminate. The respondents have also contended that the Fisheries Department of the State never restricted the petitioners from participating in any selection during the contractual period and therefore, the respondents do not take any responsibility. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties, the question of permitting or not permitting the writ petitioners to participate in the examination is no longer the issue at the moment. The only issue to be considered at this stage would be as to whether due consideration and weight age should be given to the past experiences of the petitioners while taking steps by the respondents to fill up the 32 vacant posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Fisheries Department. As noticed, the advertisement itself stipulates or provides that the preference will be given to those candidates having experience in execution/supervision of civil works under Fishery Department. Noticing that the petitioners in fact have been working on contractual basis under the Fisheries Department of the State to execute certain project, definitely the petitioners would have gain some experience and knowledge on the concerned work. Such being the case, it is for the selecting authority to make an assessment of each candidate, who has applied for the post. 8. The learned counsel for the rival parties submit that the selection process through written test is due to be held in the 1st week of June, 2017 and in that view of the matter, keeping the case pending, is found to be not necessary. 8. The learned counsel for the rival parties submit that the selection process through written test is due to be held in the 1st week of June, 2017 and in that view of the matter, keeping the case pending, is found to be not necessary. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondent authorities concerned shall abide by the terms of reference as provided in the advertisement to the effect that preference will be given to those candidates having experience in execution/supervision of Civil works under the Fishery Department. However, it is made clear that such preference can only be availed by the writ petitioners and those who are alike, if they are successful in the written examination to be conducted. 9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.