JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Prabal Rajkhowa, Pradip Kumar Nath and Hasimuddin Ahmed-challenging the judgement and order dated 19/2/2015 passed in WP(C) No.2671/2013 allowing the writ petition of Respondent No.5 Sanjeev Kumar Nath by setting aside the impugned selection process for recruitment of Statistical Assistant in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam, in the district of Morigaon. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the selection and appointment of the writ appellants nos.1, 2 and 3, who were placed in the select list above the Respondent No. 5 was quashed and it was directed that afresh selection process be initiated within 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 3. The facts in short are these. In the month of January,2005, the Director of Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam, initiated a recruitment process for filling up 2 (two) posts of Statistical Assistants in the district of Morigaon. As per the general notice, the candidates, who were enlisted in the District Employment Exchanges of the concerned districts, were invited to appear in interview. Respondent No. 5 appeared in the selection process along with other candidates and he was placed at serial number 4 in the select list published by the Director of Social welfare, Assam on 08/02/2006. It was stated that the results were being declared district-wise and strictly on the basis of merit. 4. Respondent No.5 challenged the said selection process along with other similarly situated persons in W.P(C)No.6154/2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 14/12/2010 with a liberty to approach the authorities by filing representations for ventilating their grievances. It was also directed that the Director of Social Welfares Department, Government of Assam, would consider the same and pass speaking orders within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the representation. Respondent No.5 approached the authority and his representation was rejected vide order dated 25/04/2012 and hence he preferred the writ petition W.P(C)No.2671/2013. 5. The grounds of challenge by Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition were that the writ appellants, who were placed before him in the select list, were given more marks by the Members of the Selection Committee after manipulating the mark-sheets. 5. The grounds of challenge by Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition were that the writ appellants, who were placed before him in the select list, were given more marks by the Members of the Selection Committee after manipulating the mark-sheets. It was the case of Respondent No.5 that the appellant No.1 (Roll No. 27), appellant No.2 (Roll No. 38) and appellant No.3 (Roll No. 5) were given more marks by manipulating and overwriting the marks by using whitener. Besides, the appellant No.1 was also not registered in the concerned District Employment Exchange and he was not even a candidate sponsored by it. 6. During the course of hearing, the original records were perused by the learned Single Judge and it was intimated to the Court that regarding the manipulations in awarding marks, the Respondent No. 5 had lodged a First Information Report, which was registered at Morigaon Police Station as Case No.137/2014. In the said criminal case, the individual mark-sheets of the Members of the Selection Committee were sent to the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam for forensic examination. In the report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, it was reported that the appellant No.1 initially secured 75 marks, which was increased to 96, by way of manipulation. Similarly, appellant No.3, was awarded 67 marks, which were enhanced to 94. It was also brought to light that although advertisement was issued for filling up of 2 (two) vacant posts, 3 persons i.e. the appellants were appointed being 1(one) in excess. The learned Single Judge agreed with the findings of the Forensic report and quashed the impugned selection process along with the appointment of appellants. The learned Single Judge also directed the concerned department to initiate the selection process afresh. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned judgement and order. It is apparent from the records that although only the candidates enlisted in the Employment Exchanges were called for the interview; appellant No.1 was not such a candidate. He was working in the post of Statistical Assistant on ad-hoc basis in the Department and he was invited to appear in the interview although he was also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He was working in the post of Statistical Assistant on ad-hoc basis in the Department and he was invited to appear in the interview although he was also not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Respondent No. 2 even admitted that service of appellant No.1 was regularised and not appointed against the 2(two) numbers of notified vacant posts. Since appellant No.1 was not a sponsored candidate and was called for interview to regularise his services, his selection in the said selection process was not legal and justified. Besides, he was also over aged at the time of selection. Only appellant No.2 and appellant no. 3 are said to have been appointed against aforesaid 2 (two) notified vacancies. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam clearly suggests that manipulation was done in awarding marks to appellant Nos. 1 and 3. Their marks were enhanced by using whitener. As a result, they were placed at first and third position in the select list. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly held that had such manipulations not taken in the mark-sheets, Respondent No.5 would have certainly succeeded in the selection process and appointing appellant No.1-being one person in excess of the vacant posts notified by the general notice-was wholly illegal. Appellant No.1 also did not contest the writ petition by filing affidavit and hence the allegations, levelled against him that he was over aged and was selected by manipulating marks awarded to him by the selection committee, also remains unrebutted. Besides, appellant no. 2 being a part of an illegal selection process has no other option but to face the consequences. Although, the appellants have been working for last about 12(twelve) years, the same is on the strength of an illegal selection process. Hence, the selection and appointment of the appellants do not bear any sanctity and/or confer any indefeasible right on them to remain in service. Therefore, the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned single judge quashing the selection process and appointment of the appellants with a further direction to initiate the selection process afresh does not bear any illegality or infirmity calling for interference. 8. Therefore, the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned single judge quashing the selection process and appointment of the appellants with a further direction to initiate the selection process afresh does not bear any illegality or infirmity calling for interference. 8. The learned Single Judge has directed that the selection process be initiated within 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and the Respondent No. 5 be given relaxation of his upper age limit to enable him to appear in the fresh selection process. The appellants are still working on the post of Statistical Assistant pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. Appellant No.1 was already over aged and by now appellant Nos.2 and 3 must have also crossed the upper age limit. Therefore, we do not find any reason not to extend the same benefit of relaxation of upper age limit to appellant Nos.2 and 3. As such, we direct the authorities to extend the said relaxation to appellant Nos. 2 and 3 also. By now already more than 2(two) years had elapsed since passing of the impugned judgement and order. We, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to initiate the selection process afresh within 6 (six) weeks from today and complete the process at the earliest in strict compliance with the directions given by the learned Single Judge. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, is directed to ensure that the selection is made in a fair and transparent manner by appointing persons of integrity and repute as Members of the Selection Committee. A copy of the order be immediately sent to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department for information and compliance. 9. With the above directions, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.