JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The appellant State is before us in these intra-Court appeals assailing the orders dated 14.07.2016 and 01.09.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.1845 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No.924 of 2012, respectively. Though separate orders are passed by the learned Single Judge, considering the fact that the very same issue arises for consideration in both these appeals, we take up and dispose of the same by this common order. For the purpose of narration, the case in W.A. No.158 of 2017 arising out of W.P. (C) No.1845 of 2013 is taken note. 2. In that background, the factual matrix as arising is that the writ petitioners were before the learned Single Judge claiming that their case be considered for the purpose of deficit system of grants-in-aid under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010 which be granted to them with effect from 1.2.2001 as per the order dated 17.02.2001 i.e. the date from which 48 other Junior Colleges of the State were granted the said benefit. 3. The learned Single Judge on taking into consideration the rival contentions, was of the opinion that the appellants herein have discriminated only the private respondents herein and, in that light, was of the opinion that the benefit is liable to be extended to the writ petitioners. The writ petitions were, accordingly, allowed. The appellants claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court in these appeals. 4. Heard Mr. S. Ghose, learned counsel for the appellant as also Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A. No.158 of 2017 and Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Singha, learned counsel for Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in W.A. No.229 of 2017. 5. The fact that in all 53 Junior Colleges were short-listed to be brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid, is, in fact, an admitted position, as taken note of by the learned Single Judge. However, what has been done by the appellants herein was to provide the benefit of deficit system of grants-in-aid only to 48 Junior Colleges. In that light, five (5) colleges among the short-listed ones which include the respondents herein had been left out. However, what has been done by the appellants herein was to provide the benefit of deficit system of grants-in-aid only to 48 Junior Colleges. In that light, five (5) colleges among the short-listed ones which include the respondents herein had been left out. While taking note of the aspect as to whether the action of the appellants herein was justified, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the list prepared by the Director of Secondary Education wherein all 53 Junior Colleges had been included, but only 48 nos. of Junior Colleges were brought under the deficit system of grants-in-aid. The appellants herein who were respondents in the writ petitions had not put forth any justification except to contend with regard to the number of employees in the said Colleges and, therefore, for having excluded the respondent colleges. However, it was noticed from the report that among the 48 colleges which had been admitted to the benefit, there were colleges which, in fact, had been established subsequent to the colleges who were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. In that view, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there is no ground for making a different consideration in respect of the respondents herein. In the instant appeals, the learned counsel for the appellants except for contending that few colleges who were excluded were due to financial constraints, has not indicated any reason as to why 5(five) colleges chosen were left out from the grant of the said benefit. Admittedly, the colleges which have been established subsequent to the respondents colleges were also included. In that light, the matter was considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has referred to all aspects of the matter and arrived at a finding that there was no justifiable reason to exclude the respondents herein and, in that light, having arrived at the conclusion that in such circumstance the respondents herein also would be entitled to the benefit with effect from 1.2.2001, has allowed the writ petitions. In the said background, when there is no other material placed before us to take a different view from the one as taken by the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 6. The appeals being devoid of merit stand disposed of.