JUDGMENT : All these writ petitions being connected and related to a recruitment process for filling up of the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the BTC are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. At the outset, this Court has been informed that so far as the WP(C)/7553/2017 and WP(C)/1294/2018 are concerned, no adjudication would be necessary as the grievance raised in those writ petitions pertaining to the minimum educational qualification has also been redressed in the meantime. 3. The facts which are projected in the writ petition and relevant to the issue involved are that on 22.11.2017, an advertisement was issued for filling up of various posts in the BTC, including 35 nos. of posts for ANM. One of the eligibility criteria was Higher Secondary passed which, however, was corrected by a corrigendum to be Class-X passed. It is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted their candidatures in terms of the said advertisement. However, they were never called in the selection process and accordingly, they were deprived of from a fair opportunity in public employment. The challenge is also based on the fact that no merit list was prepared and the selection was apparently based only on viva voce. The aspect of filling up more posts than the numbers of post advertised has also been raised. 4. I have heard Shri BB Narzary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. The BTC authorities are represented by Shri RK Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not given any call letters and therefore, they could not participate in the selection which, otherwise also is not in accordance with law as it was consisting only of viva voce. It is also submitted that no merit list has been prepared and no list containing the marks obtained by the respective candidates was published. It is also submitted that the selection was held without following any Rules. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2004 as per which, the BTC was supposed to make Rules for making appointments. It is also submitted that the selection was held without following any Rules. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2004 as per which, the BTC was supposed to make Rules for making appointments. It is, accordingly submitted that the selection and appointment are liable to be interfered with and a fresh selection be directed to be made by giving the petitioners a fair opportunity of participation. 6. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following case laws: i) State of Bihar Vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 104 ; ii) Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 386 ; iii) Renu & Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazri & Anr., (2014) 15 SCC 731 ; and iv) Dipankar Dihingia Vs. State of Assam & 6 Ors., Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in WA/337/2018 (DB). 7. In the case of State of Bihar(supra), it has been held that selection and appointment without preparation of a merit list is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The case of Mukul Saikia (supra) has been cited on the aspect of filling up of more vacancies than those advertised. 9. In the case of Dipankar Dihingia(supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that selection and appointment is not generally to be done on the basis of oral examination only. 10. Percontra, Shri Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel has questioned the locus and competency of the petitioners to raise the present issue itself. By drawing the attention of this Court to the advertisement dated 22.11.2017, the learned Standing Counsel submits that it was clearly stipulated that it would be a “walk-in-interview” wherein all details of such interview was stated. The dates for interview were given as 7th & 8th December, 2017; time as 10-00 AM onwards and the Venue as the Central Selection Board, DLR Building, Kokrajhar. 11. With regard to the contention that no selection list has been published, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have themselves admitted that a list of 56 candidates was, indeed published. He submits that though the names and other details were not notified, the respective roll numbers were clearly notified. 11. With regard to the contention that no selection list has been published, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have themselves admitted that a list of 56 candidates was, indeed published. He submits that though the names and other details were not notified, the respective roll numbers were clearly notified. With regard to the submissions that the selection was held without any Rules whereby reliance has been placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2004, it is submitted that by the said office memorandum, the BTC was held to be competent to make appointment. It is further submitted that the selection was made through a duly conducted recruitment process wherein the oral examination had three aspects with different marks. For General Knowledge and IQ, 10 marks each were allotted and for Personality, 5 marks and accordingly, the selection was done. 12. Shri Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the records would reveal that marks were allotted to each of the candidates and what is more striking is that the petitioners had actually appeared in the said interview and this fact has been totally suppressed in these proceedings. The learned Standing Counsel has also produced the attendance sheet of the said interview process. As regards the aspect of making more appointments than the vacancies notified, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the advertisement itself had clarified that the notified vacancies of 35 posts were likely to be increased or decreased depending upon the situation and accordingly, the selection and appointment were made. He has also submitted that the petitioners having participated in the selection process and had emerged to be unsuccessful cannot turn around and challenge the same. In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the cases of – i) Union of India & Ors. Vs. S Vinodh Kumar & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; and ii) Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 227 . 13. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials available on record have also been carefully examined. 14. The advertisement dated 22.11.2017 had clearly indicated that it would be a “walk-in-interview” and being conscious of such procedures, it is the admitted case that the petitioners had submitted their candidatures. 13. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials available on record have also been carefully examined. 14. The advertisement dated 22.11.2017 had clearly indicated that it would be a “walk-in-interview” and being conscious of such procedures, it is the admitted case that the petitioners had submitted their candidatures. As observed above, the aspect of educational qualification was already rectified by the corrigendum and therefore, there is no existing grievance on that aspect. 15. The advertisement clearly stipulated the dates, time and venue of the “walk-in-interview” which have been stated above. Though the vacancies were notified to be 35, there was a clear stipulation that the numbers of post was likely to increase or decrease. The total number of appointment made is 56 and the contention that no merit list is prepared is belied by the document annexed in these proceedings containing 56 roll numbers of the selected candidates. The learned Standing Counsel has also highlighted the aspect as to how the oral tests were held and marks were allotted on different aspect, such as General Knowledge, IQ and Personality. The marks allotted are also available in the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel. What is more intriguing is the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel supported by the attendance sheet that the petitioners had, in fact participated in the said “walk-in-interview”. There is an admission in the petitions regarding submission of their candidatures. However, the non-disclosure of the fact that the petitioners had participated in the interview amounts to suppression of material facts. In any case, the challenge which is structured on the grounds mentioned above does not appear to be substantiated by the materials available on record. The case laws cited on behalf of the petitioners would not come to their aid as this Court has noticed that a merit list was, indeed prepared based on which, the appointments have been made. The aspect of filling up of more posts than those of the numbers advertised was a stipulation in the advertisement itself and therefore, would not be a ground for interference. In the case of Dipankar Dihingia (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, there is a clear finding in paragraph 22 that the private respondent therein had performed poorly in the written examination and in that context, the decision was rendered. In the case of Dipankar Dihingia (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, there is a clear finding in paragraph 22 that the private respondent therein had performed poorly in the written examination and in that context, the decision was rendered. The aspect that the petitioners had, indeed participated in the selection process is a relevant and important aspect and accordingly, their locus to challenge the selection process after they are unsuccessful is itself questionable. Even if it is assumed that they had not participated, what is admitted that their candidatures being offered and there being a clear stipulation in the advertisement itself regarding the dates, time and venue of the “walk-in-interview”, the contention of the petitioners that they were not given any call letter is not acceptable at all. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for any interference with the selection and appointment initiated vide the advertisement dated 22.11.2007 is made out and accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 17. No costs.