JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. J.P. Kachari, the learned advocate for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. J. Rongpi, the learned advocate for the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APDCL for short), i.e. respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. S.M. Baruah, the learned advocate for the private respondents No. 6 to 9. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 12 petitioners herein have projected that the petitioners No.1 to 10 were persons from OBC category, petitioner No. 11 belonged from the Schedule Caste category and the petitioner No.12 was a person from the General category. Since the year 2008, the petitioners were engaged by the APDCL as casual labourers and/or outsourced Sahayak for maintenance of L.T. and H.T. line and other works under the Gaurisagar Electrical Sub Division and Sivasagar Electrical Sub Division. By advertisement in newspapers, the APDCL invited applications for filling up 1064 posts of Trainee Sahayak as per criteria and qualifications as mentioned therein. One of the conditions mentioned in the employment advertisement, which appears to be one of the causes on which this writ petition is based is that the applications for the posts of Sahayak should be submitted in offices which covered their place of residence and that the applicants would be considered where application form was submitted. The candidates including the petitioners participated in the interview held for selection and accordingly, the authorities had published the provisional select list for all 93 posts of Sahayak, where candidates other than the petitioners were selected. The selection of private respondents No.6 to 9 have been challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that they were not permanent residents within Sivasagar Electrical Circle, that the said respondents were selected on pick and choose basis, the said respondents had lesser experience than the petitioners. 3. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners had meticulously referred to various documents on record and had referred to the statements made in the writ petition as well as to the stand of the respondents in their affidavit- in- opposition and the statements made in the affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioners. 3. The learned senior advocate for the petitioners had meticulously referred to various documents on record and had referred to the statements made in the writ petition as well as to the stand of the respondents in their affidavit- in- opposition and the statements made in the affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents had admitted that the respondents No.6 to 9 were the residents of Dibrugarh District, which would disentitle them to apply outside their home district and, as such, it is submitted that the selection of the respondents No.6 to 9 stood vitiated, being contrary to the terms and conditions of the employment notice/ advertisement as published by the APDCL. It is submitted that from the contents of the affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 it was apparent that the said authorities were misinterpreting the relevant domicile clause appearing in the employment advertisement at their whims and caprice. It is submitted that the selection process itself was vitiated as the APDCL authorities were giving a go-bye to the domicile clause, because there is a possibility that many prospective candidates did not participate in the selection process due to the domicile clause contained in the employment advertisement. Hence, it is submitted that the selection process and/or the appointment of the private respondents No.6 to 9 be interfered with in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned senior advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5 and the learned advocate for the respondents No.6 to 9 had made similar submissions. By referring to the employment advertisement it is submitted that the contents cannot be interpreted to debar any eligible candidate to put up his/ her candidature for being selected in the posts of Sahayak in APDCL. Hence, there was no bar for the respondents No.6 to 9 to apply for being appointed under Sivasagar Electrical Circle. It is submitted that the said respondents were working under Moran Electrical Sub- Division which fell within the Sivasagar Electrical Division and, as such, it is submitted that there was no infirmity in the selection process. 5. Hence, there was no bar for the respondents No.6 to 9 to apply for being appointed under Sivasagar Electrical Circle. It is submitted that the said respondents were working under Moran Electrical Sub- Division which fell within the Sivasagar Electrical Division and, as such, it is submitted that there was no infirmity in the selection process. 5. As indicated herein before, one of the conditions mentioned in the employment advertisement, which appears to be one of the causes on which this writ petition is based is that the applications for the posts of Sahayak should be submitted in offices which covered their place of residence and that the applicants would be considered where application form was submitted. The said clause is extracted below:- "Applications for the post of Trainee Sahayak should submit the prescribed application form in the following offices which covers their place of permanent residence. The offices are Deputy General Managers of Electrical Circles of APDCL located at Ulubari at Guwahati, Maligaon at Guwahati, Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Mangaldoi, Rangia, Dibrugarh, Sivasagar, Jorhat, Golaghar, Tinsukia, Silcahr, Nagaon, Morigaon and Badarpur. They will be considered for the Circle where application form is submitted." 6. In the said context, it is seen from the perusal of the entire employment advertisement that it contains no negative covenant to the effect that persons applying for the post of Sahayak in APDCL Office situated outside their district of permanent residence would be disqualified. In a given case the authorities may restrict employment opportunities to the residents within a particular district, if the law or the particular scheme for employment permits so. But in this present case in hand, the relevant clause referred to herein above, cannot be given a restrictive meaning, as projected by the learned senior advocate for the petitioners that the candidature of candidates applying in the APDCL Office which falls outside the district of their respective permanent residence would stand disqualified. 7. Moreover, in the said regard, one more aspect merits consideration, which is that the selection of respondents No.6 to 9 cannot be interfered with on the ground that they had applied in a APDCL Office which fell outside their place of residence, owing to the mandate of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court, which prohibits ineligibility and/or discrimination on the ground of place of residence. 8. 8. In this case, the petitioners have made the following prayers in this writ petition:- a. Issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued commanding them to refrain from giving effect the provisional selection list for the post of Sahayak under Sivasagar Electrical Circle, Sivasagar and/or to show cause as to why the selection list dated 11.1.2016 issued by the Asstt. General Manager (HR), Jorhat Zone, UAZ, APDCL, Jorhat should not be set aside and/ or quashed; b. Issue a rule in the nature of Certiorari Commanding the respondents to transmit and certify to this Hon’ble Court all records relating to the selection and appointment for the post of Sahayak under Sivasagar Electrical Circle, APDCL Sivasagar so that conscionable justice may be done by setting aside the aforesaid selection and appointment for the post of Sahayak. 9. In the context of the aforesaid prayers, this Court is of the considered view that under the impugned provisional select list, selection of 93 candidates for 93 posts of Sahayak has been made, but save and except for the private respondents No.6 to 9, the remaining selected candidates are not the parties to this writ petition, as such, if the prayers, as made in the writ petition is allowed and the said select list dated 11.01.2016 is interfered with, the interest of non-parties to this writ petition would be adversely affected. 10. Thus, for the reasons and discussions above, this Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned Provisional Selection List dated 11.01.2016 for the post of Sahayak under Sivasagar Electrical Division, issued by the Assistant General Manager (HR), Jorhat Zone, UAZ, APDCL, Jorhat. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.