JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Although notice was served upon the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by registered post with A/D on 1.8.2015 but no A/D card returned. Notice was deemed served upon the respondent No.4 vide Lawazima Court’s order dated 20.6.2016 and fresh notice was issued upon the respondent No.5 on 11.8.2016. As per the office note dated 4.2.2017, A/D has returned from the respondent No.5. In view of the office note dated 4.2.2017 notice is deemed served upon the respondent No.5 as well. 2. Mr. H Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner responded to the Advertisement notice dated 15.3.2015 (Annexure-I) floated by the Joint Director of Health Services (TB) -cum- State Programme Officer (RNICP) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts under the State TB Cell including the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (STS for short) amongst others. He submits that two posts of STS was advertised for the Goalpara district and in the written examination conducted, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl No.2 while the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were placed at SL. Nos. 1 and 5 respectively. However, in the interview that was held, the petitioner was not selected and instead the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on being selected were appointed to the post of STS vide order dated 29.6.2015 (Annexure-V). The petitioner being aggrieved, filed his representation before the Joint Director of Health Services (TB) –cum- State Programme Officer (RNICP) on 1.7.2015 (Annexure-VI) which however was not considered and disposed by the said authorities compelling the writ petitioner to approach this Court through the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. H Das, learned counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not have been selected over the writ petitioner in as much as respondent No. 4 was not a resident of Goalpara district whereas respondent No. 5 did not possess a driving license as can be easily seen from the results declared in the written examination. 3. Mr. H Das, learned counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 could not have been selected over the writ petitioner in as much as respondent No. 4 was not a resident of Goalpara district whereas respondent No. 5 did not possess a driving license as can be easily seen from the results declared in the written examination. He submits that advertisement clearly provides that the vacancy sought to be filled up was in respect of each particular districts showing the number of vacancies with the District Programme Office (RNICP) of the respective district being assigned responsibility of the district concerned. He also submits that in terms of the advertisement, possession of permanent two wheeler driving license was stipulated. However, by ignoring such stipulation, respondents have illegally and arbitrarily appointed respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the two vacant posts of STS earmarked for Goalpara district. Although the petitioner submitted a representation to the Joint Director of Health Service (TB)–cum- State Programme Officer ( RNICP), the same has not been considered till date. 4. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department Ms. S Sharma submits that the petitioner may have qualified in the written examination but the same was not a final selection. The final selection was based on the assessment of the applicants based on the written test as well as interview as provided in the Advertisement dated 15.3.2015. She submits that interview was held on 28.5.2015 and the petitioner failed to qualify himself for appointment in the interview and therefore the petitioner cannot have any right to be appointed under such circumstances. 5. I have considered the submission of the rival parties. It is seen that the State respondents are yet to respond in the matter by filing their affidavit-in-opposition and at the same time, it is noticed that the representation dated 1.7.2015 filed by the writ petitioner highlighting his grievance has also not been addressed by the authority concerned. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that instead of prolonging the matter, the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the respondent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass necessary order. 6. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that instead of prolonging the matter, the writ petition should be disposed of by directing the respondent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass necessary order. 6. Having opined thus, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petiotner as projected by him in the writ petition as well as in the representation dated 1.7.2015. The petitioner shall furnish a certified copy of this order along with the writ petition to the respondent No.2 within 15 days from today and the respondent No.2 thereafter shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the same. 7. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.