JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. W.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 10 whereas, Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 14 to 19. 2. This writ petition has a chequered history and, therefore, the facts and circumstances, shorn of unnecessary details, are briefly narrated herein below:- (i) The Director of Industries, Government of Assam, had issued an advertisement dated 30/11/1993 inviting applications for filling up few vacant posts of Extension Officers (EOs). Upon conclusion of the recruitment process, a final select list of 150 candidates was prepared. Based on the aforesaid process, appointment orders had apparently been issued to as many as 140 candidates. However, the recruitment process was called into question by some of the candidates, who were not appointed, by filing a number of writ petitions before this Court, registered and numbered as Civil Rule Nos. 128/1996, 3988/1996, 2340/1996, 4730/1995, 196/1996 and 933/1996. After hearing the petitioners as well as the departmental counsel and upon taking note of an enquiry report dated 21/08/1996 prepared by the then Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries Department, projecting several irregularities in the selection process, the learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of the writ petitions by the common judgment and order dated 01/09/1997, inter-alia, holding that the entire selection procedure was a farce and, therefore, fresh advertisement ought to be issued by indicating the number of available vacancies and that the selection should be made as per the prescribed procedure. In the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997, it has, however, been observed that those who were working/appointed, they should be given notice and necessary action should be taken against them, if it is found that they had been appointed without being properly and duly selected. The order dated 01/09/1997 was apparently passed after hearing the aggrieved candidates as well as the departmental authorities but the selected/appointed candidates were not made parties in those proceedings. The order dated 01/09/1997 was apparently passed after hearing the aggrieved candidates as well as the departmental authorities but the selected/appointed candidates were not made parties in those proceedings. As such, a number of selected candidates, who had in the meantime been appointed in the post of E.Os, had preferred appeals being Writ Appeal No. 544/1997 and Writ Appeal No. 549/1997 before the Division Bench assailing the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997, primarily on the ground that the judgment and order was passed without hearing them. (ii) The Division Bench had disposed of the Appeals by the judgment and order dated 18/11/1999 making some modification in the order dated 01/09/1997 passed by the learned Single Judge by providing that if the writ appellants submit reply to the show cause notices issued to them, than the authorities would consider the same without being prejudiced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997. (iii) Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench, a Sub-Committee was constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the records for issuing show-cause notices. Thereafter, identical show cause notices were issued to as many as 82 selected candidates asking them to submit all testimonials such as academic certificates, call letters for interview, appointment letter etc. The notices were evidently issued in terms of the judgment and order dated 18/11/1999 passed by the Division Bench. (iv) It appears that the selected candidates had submitted their replies to the show cause notices denying the allegations brought against them. In the meantime, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department, had issued a communication dated 29/09/2000 pertaining to the appointment of E.Os by stating as follows :- “(1) Time for 15 days may be given to 19(nineteen) nos. of Extension Officers (Ind.) for submission of documents. If they failed to submit the same within the time limit, their services may be terminated. (2) 52 (fifty two) nos. of Extension Officer (Ind.) who are found in order in all respect may be allowed to continue. of Extension Officers (Ind.) for submission of documents. If they failed to submit the same within the time limit, their services may be terminated. (2) 52 (fifty two) nos. of Extension Officer (Ind.) who are found in order in all respect may be allowed to continue. (3) As regards relaxation of age in respect of Shri Pusna Suri, it is not acceptable as Shri Suri’s candidature was not in order as he crossed 36 years of age as on 01.01.1993 (date fixed in the advertisement and he was not eligible for appearing at the advertisement) and he was not eligible for appearing at the said post but appeared illegally which is well known to him. Had he applied for age relaxation earlier, his case could have been considered. (4) The Extension Officer (Ind.) whose names did not appear in the select list but were appointed illegally should be terminated forthwith. (5) 7 (seven) nos. of Extension Officer (Ind.) who were unsuccessful in written test but appointed illegally be terminated forthwith. (6) The case of 6 (six) candidates who approached before the Hon’ble High Court seeking justice may be considered for appointment as it is due to these candidates approaching the Hon’ble High Court, the irregularities of selection came to light.” (v) Be it mentioned herein that these 6 (six) candidates were placed at Sl. Nos. 91, 96, 99, 104, 109 and 149 in the select list and hence, were evidently placed below the writ petitioners, who was at Sl. No. 80 of the select list. (vi) In the meantime, it appears that, in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court on 01/09/1997, the department had issued advertisement notice dated 26/10/2002 for filling up 30 posts of E.Os/Field Enumerators/Economic Investigators in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam. The writ petitioner had admittedly submitted his application in response to the advertisement notice dated 26/10/2002. However, it also appears that on account of proceedings pending before this Court as well as the interim orders operating therein, the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 26/10/200, could not be taken to its logical end. The writ petitioner had admittedly submitted his application in response to the advertisement notice dated 26/10/2002. However, it also appears that on account of proceedings pending before this Court as well as the interim orders operating therein, the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 26/10/200, could not be taken to its logical end. Situated thus, the writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) 4916/2006 with the following prayers :- “(1) Call for the records of the cases relating to the services of the Extension Officers serving under the Directorate of Industries or who have been sent on deputation to other departments whose appointments have been quashed by the Hon’ble Court and are still continuing in their services and/or; (2) Institute an enquiry by an independent investigating agency to fix responsibility on the persons who have appointed and allowed the illegal appointees to continue in their services till date as Extension Officers under the Directorate of Industries inspite of their appointments being declared illegal by the Hon’ble Court and/or; (3) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose as to what steps have been taken to fill up the vacant posts of Extension Officers under the Directorate of Industries pursuant to the advertisement published in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 26/10/2002 and/or (4) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (vii) The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 28/04/2009 with the following observations :- “(5) In view of the above, it appears that the official respondents, after receiving the applications from different candidates, did not commit or violate any statutory provisions of law requiring interference by exercising the writ jurisdiction. The writ petitioner has alleged that inspite of the direction made by the learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench the official respondents allowed some of the candidates to continue with the job, who were selected on the basis of the illegal selection process that was cancelled by this Court. If that is correct, the official respondents, should initiate appropriate action as per the direction passed in the Civil Rules by the learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench in the writ appeal aforesaid. The respondent no. If that is correct, the official respondents, should initiate appropriate action as per the direction passed in the Civil Rules by the learned Single Judge and the Hon’ble Division Bench in the writ appeal aforesaid. The respondent no. 2 shall cause an enquiry into the matter to ascertain the correctness of the allegation made in the writ petition and take appropriate action. The petitioner has prayed for issuing the direction requiring the respondents to disclose the steps taken to fill up the vacant posts of Extension Officer under the Director of Industries in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 26/10/02, such information can be obtained by the writ petitioner by resorting to some other available procedure. The nature of the said relief sought by the writ petitioner does not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.” (viii) In the meantime, the writ petitioner had come to know through the reply furnished in response to quarries made under the R.T.I. Act, that as many as 5 (five) candidates i.e. the respondent nos. 6 to 10 who were placed below the petitioner in the select list, had been appointed as Extension Officers as per clause (6) of the report dated 29/09/2000 submitted by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department, as noted above. (ix) Apparently, the name of the petitioner in the select list dated 22/03/1995 appeared at Sl. No. 80 whereas, the names of the respondent nos. 7 8, 9 & 10 appeared at Sl. Nos. 104, 109, 96 and 149 respectively. The respondent no. 6, who was placed at Sl. No. 99, has since expired. As per the averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner came to know about the fact that these candidates, who were placed below him in the merit list, were appointed way back in the month of September, 2006. The respondent no. 6, who was placed at Sl. No. 99, has since expired. As per the averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner came to know about the fact that these candidates, who were placed below him in the merit list, were appointed way back in the month of September, 2006. However, after a lapse of nearly 4 (four) years from the date of his knowledge, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition by making following prayers :- “(1) Call for the records of the cases relating to the services of the Extension Officers serving under the Directorate of Industries or who have been sent on deputation to other departments whose appointments have been quashed by the Hon’ble Court and are still continuing in their services and/or – (2) Institute an enquiry by an independent investigating agency to fix responsibility on the persons who have appointed and allowed the illegal appointees to continue in their services till date as Extension Officers under the Directorate of Industries in spite of their appointments being declared illegal by the Hon’ble Court and/or; (3) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to disclose as to what steps have been taken to fill up the vacant posts of Extension Officers under the Directorate of Industries pursuant to the advertisement published in the Assam Tribune in its issue dated 26/10/2002 and/or (4) Directing the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Extension Officer in the office of the Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Assam, Industries and Commerce Department, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 21 (Respondent no.2) and/or ; (4) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The official respondents have contested the petitioner’s case by filing counter affidavit, inter-alia, contending that the writ petition is hit by the principles of constructive res judicata and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this case due to delay on his part in approaching this Court. 4. It transpires from the record that by order dated 26/04/2013 passed in the present Writ Petition i.e. WP(C) 997/2010, the Chief Secretary was asked to look into the matter and furnish a comprehensive report by fixing the matter on 20/05/2013. 4. It transpires from the record that by order dated 26/04/2013 passed in the present Writ Petition i.e. WP(C) 997/2010, the Chief Secretary was asked to look into the matter and furnish a comprehensive report by fixing the matter on 20/05/2013. It further appears that in terms of the order of this Court, the Chief Secretary, Assam, had submitted his report dated 18/05/2013, making certain adverse observations against many of the selected/appointed candidates including the private respondent nos. 6 to 14 herein. Situated thus, the respondent nos. 6 to 14 had assailed the order dated 26/04/2013 as well as series of earlier orders passed in this writ petition by filing Writ Appeal No. 253/2013. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated 03/02/2014 disposing of the Writ Appeal No. 253/2013 with the following observations and directions :- “Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the fact that on previous occasion even interim order was passed in appeal, we give indulgence to the appellants to file this appeal. We do not wish to burden this order by narrating facts in details in as much as having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion to allow the appeal and remand the case to the writ Court for deciding the writ petition filed by respondent No.11 against the other respondents in accordance with law afresh. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the matter to the writ Court, and, hence, we refrain from recording any finding on merits of the controversy and leave the writ Court to decide afresh the writ petition on merit afresh. The remand is called for because firstly, the rights of the parties were not decided; secondly, it did not contain sufficient reasons and thirdly, in the light of the fact that the appellants have filed the appeal as an intervener having interest in the subject matter of writ petition and were not heard and hence they can now be given indulgence to become parties to the writ petition and have their say before any final order is passed in the writ petition by the writ court. It is for these reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the writ Court to decide the writ petition afresh on merit after allowing the appellants to formally become parties to the said writ petition as party respondents and file their say/return. The writ Court may also afford opportunity to all the parties to complete their pleadings and then decide the writ petition in accordance with law. Parties would be at liberty to make application for grant of appropriate interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition. Registry is directed to list the writ petition before the writ Court as per roster. No cost.” 5. Consequently, the respondent nos. 6 to 14 were impleaded as private respondents in this present writ petition by amending the petition, after the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after hearing all the parties. 6. During the course of his submission, Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has emphatically argued that since the authorities have appointed as many as 5 (five) candidates, named above, i.e. respondent nos. 6 to 10 as Extension Officers notwithstanding the fact that they were all placed below the petitioner in the select list dated 22/03/1995 and that too, for the reasons which were not legitimate, hence, it is a clear case of discriminatory treatment having been meted out to the petitioner. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner has, therefore, prayed for issuance a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue an order of appointment in favour of the writ petitioner by operating the select list dated 22/03/1995 wherein, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 80. 7. Mr. Aanjan Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, Assam, on the other hand, has argued that the prayer made in the writ petition is not bona fide and, therefore, does not deserve any consideration by this Court. It is the submission of learned departmental counsel that although the writ petitioner was all along aware of the developments including the publication of the select list and the ongoing litigations, yet, he did not take any action in the matter for securing his interest. On the contrary, the petitioner was sitting on the fence all along watching the proceeding. It is the submission of learned departmental counsel that although the writ petitioner was all along aware of the developments including the publication of the select list and the ongoing litigations, yet, he did not take any action in the matter for securing his interest. On the contrary, the petitioner was sitting on the fence all along watching the proceeding. He has approached this Court after a lapse of nearly 15 (fifteen) years seeking a direction for his appointment, which prayer is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Kalita has further submitted that the select list of the year 1995 has already lapsed and the same cannot be operated at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner is over aged for appointment in a Government job and hence, he cannot be appointed. 8. The learned departmental counsel has further argued that having failed to make a prayer before this Court seeking appointment in the post of Extension officer in Civil Rule No. 4916/2006, the relief claimed in the present writ petition is clearly barred by constructive res-judicata. Since the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of nearly 15 years by filing the present writ petition seeking an order directing the respondents to appoint him in the post of EO, this writ petition is also hit by the principles of delay and laches. 9. Mr. A.K. Purayastha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 10 submits that the respondent no. 6 has expired and respondent nos. 8 & 10 have already retired from service. Since the other respondents are also in the verge of retirement, adverse order, if any, passed by this Court at this stage interfering with the appointment of the private respondents, would not only be highly inequitable but the same would also cause serious prejudice to the family members of the said respondents. 10. Similar is the submission of Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 11, 12 & 14 to 19, who has also submitted that many of his clients have already retired and their appointments are not under challenge in the present proceeding. Under the circumstances, no relief, as prayed for, by the writ petitioner can be granted to him. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 12. Under the circumstances, no relief, as prayed for, by the writ petitioner can be granted to him. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 12. The facts and circumstances of the case, as notice herein above, are more or less admitted. It is the admitted position of fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process initiated by the Director of Industries and Commerce by issuing the advertisement notice dated 30/11/1993 and his name appeared in Sl. No. 80 of the merit list published on 22/03/1995. Thereafter, in terms of the judgment and order dated 01/09/1997 as well as the judgment dated 18/11/99 passed by the Division Bench, a fresh advertisement dated 26/10/2002 was issued by the authorities, in response to which, the petitioner had submitted his candidature for appointment to the post of Extension Officer. The aforesaid advertisement notice was evidently issued on the premise that the earlier recruitment process conducted as per the advertisement notice dated 30/11/1993 was illegal as declared by this Court and, hence, advertisement notice was issued for conducting the recruitment process afresh for filling up the aforesaid posts of E.Os. Despite knowing fully well about the circumstance under which the advertisement notice dated 26/10/2002 was issued, the petitioner did not seek enforcement of his right, if any, under the select list dated 22/03/1995 at the relevant point of time although, he was aware of the fact that many candidates had in the meantime, been appointed as Extension Officers in terms of the said select list. It appears that the sole reason for which the writ petitioner is aggrieved is on account of the fact that as per the communication dated 29/09/2000, six candidates placed below the petitioner in the select list including the respondent nos. 6 to 10 were appointed merely because they had approached this Court by filing writ petitions, bringing the irregularities in the recruitment process to light. There can be no doubt about the fact that the reason cited by the department for appointing the six candidates cannot be held to be valid. However, the question that would arise is that, in the absence of any challenge made to the appointment orders, whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case against any of the private respondents. However, the question that would arise is that, in the absence of any challenge made to the appointment orders, whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case against any of the private respondents. If not, can a direction be issued to appoint the writ petitioner against any of the posts of E.Os, by operating the select list dated 22/03/1995, which posts were filled up by appointing other selected candidates? The answer to the said question, in the opinion of this Court, has to be in the negative. 13. In the year 2006, the petitioner had filed WP(C) No. 4916/2006 but no direction was prayed so as to issue a Writ for issuing order of appointment in his favour. Rather, as would be apparent for the observations made above, the aforesaid writ petition proceeded on the basis that the earlier recruitment process was illegal and, therefore, an enquiry was required to be made into the circumstances under which the illegal appointees were allowed to continue in service. 14. As has also been mentioned herein above, by the order dated 28/04/2009, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by holding that there was no merit in the case. The judgment and order dated 28/04/2009 dismissing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) 4916/2006 has attained finality in the eyes of law. Thereafter, the petitioner had once again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition with the prayers as noted above. 15. A careful reading of the prayer portion of the present writ petition would go to show that the prayer of petitioner is clearly self contradictory. In clauses I, II and III of the prayer portion of the writ petition, the petitioner has projected that the recruitment process was vitiated due to illegalities and, therefore, he had sought an order from this Court to institute an enquiry by an independent investigating agency so as to fix responsibility on the persons who had allowed illegal appointees to continue in service as Extension Officers. On the other hand, in prayer No. IV, the petitioner has sought a direction for appointing him as Extension Officer on the basis of the same recruitment process, which has been projected in the writ petition to be illegal. On the other hand, in prayer No. IV, the petitioner has sought a direction for appointing him as Extension Officer on the basis of the same recruitment process, which has been projected in the writ petition to be illegal. Such contradictory prayer made in the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be sufficient ground to deny him any relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, there are other circumstances, which would be equally significant so as to deny relief to the writ petitioner in this case. 16. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain reported in (1977) 2 SCC 806 relied upon by Mr. Kalita, it has been held that a plea which was well within the knowledge of a party to the proceeding and could well have been taken in the writ petition, cannot be raised in a subsequent proceeding as the same would be clearly barred by principles of res-judicata. 17. In the case of S.S.Balu and another Vs. Sate of Kerala and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 also relied upon by Mr. Kalita, it has been held that it is trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the Court after long delay, relief prayed for may be denied on the ground of delay and laches, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated as the other candidates, who had obtained benefit of a judgment. 18. In the present case, in order to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner, the Court would necessarily have to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has a right to be appointed as a selected candidates against the vacant post of Extension Officer. Such a conclusion is not possible in this case firstly, on account of the fact that there is no such pleading in the writ petition. Secondly, the petitioner himself, having questioned the validity of the selection processing by seeking an enquiry into the matter, cannot now turn back and seek appointment against one of the posts sought to be filled up by the same recruitment process. 19. Secondly, the petitioner himself, having questioned the validity of the selection processing by seeking an enquiry into the matter, cannot now turn back and seek appointment against one of the posts sought to be filled up by the same recruitment process. 19. It is also to be noted herein that to entertain the plea of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Extension Officer, this Court would have to set aside the appointment of one of the selected candidates, who was below the petitioner in the select list. After the lapse of more than 28 years since their appointment, more particularly, when some of them have already expired or retired from service and are drawing pension, such an order would be highly inequitable. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, this Court would be reluctant in granting such relief merely because of the fact that some candidates below the petitioner in the select list had been appointed by ignoring his claim, more so, since there is no challenge to their appointment orders in the present case. 20. Finally, this Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner is presently aged about 52 years and he has surpassed the upper age limit of being appointed in a Government job. Therefore, even assuming that a case is made out on the ground of negative equality, no such right of the petitioner to be appointed can be enforced in this writ petition due to the reasons stated above. 21. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.