JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department representing the respondents no. 1, 2, & 3 and Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the State representing the respondent no. 4 as well as Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the private respondents no. 5 & 6. 2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present proceeding have presented a challenge to a select list dated 05.11.2016, issued towards selecting candidates in pursuance to a process of recruitment initiated vide an advertisement dated 22.07.2016, issued by the District Medical Officer (DMO), Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, for recruitment against 34 posts of Group ‘C’ MPW/MTS workers. The petitioners have further prayed that there being 2(two) clear vacant posts available in the said recruitment process, considering the merit position obtained by them in the selection process, they are required to be directed to be appointed against the said posts. 3. The facts requisite for consideration of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:- The DMO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, had issued an advertisement dated 22.07.2016, inviting applications for filling up of 34 numbers of posts of Group ‘C’ MPW/MTS under his establishment. The said advertisement had also spelt out the method of recruitment and also the eligibility conditions requisite for the candidates to apply against the said posts so advertised. It is contended by the petitioners that they having been found to satisfy the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, were permitted to appear in the selection process. It is contended by the petitioners that on conclusion of the selection process, the Deputy Commissioner, under whose supervision the selection process was conducted had published a select list for the various categories and thereafter, the DMO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, basing on the said select list had proceeded to effect appointment of the selected candidates. It is contended that in total 32 candidates were so appointed in pursuance to the said selection process. The petitioners have contended that the respondent authorities while proceeding to make the selection process in question had not considered the merit position of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners herein having been placed at Serial Nos. It is contended that in total 32 candidates were so appointed in pursuance to the said selection process. The petitioners have contended that the respondent authorities while proceeding to make the selection process in question had not considered the merit position of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the petitioners herein having been placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 of the Waiting List against the Reserved Quota and the person so placed at Serial No. 1, having already in writing communicated that he is not interested to be appointed against the post so advertised, there being 2(two) clear vacant posts available, inasmuch as, only 32 candidates being appointed against the 34 posts advertised, the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered against the 2(two) available vacant posts. The petitioners have further contended that the respondent authorities have also effected appointment of a candidate on compassionate ground against the post so advertised vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, which is clearly not permissible. In view of the said position, the petitioners having made a claim for being recruited against the available 2(two) vacant posts, including the post utilized for effecting appointment on compassionate ground and such claim having not been duly considered, the present proceeding was instituted by the petitioners. 4. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 submits that 34 posts in different categories came to be advertised and in the advertisement, there was no specification that the posts so advertised would also include posts meant for Sports Category and for person claiming the same under the compassionate appointment scheme. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authorities had subsequently issued a corrigendum, which was not given wide publicity, and had reduced the number of posts so advertised from 34 to 33 on the plea that the Sports Quota as was envisaged was so removed from the process of recruitment by the Government. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 5 and 6 were so regularized in their services through a different process of selection and the posts utilized for the purpose was not within the 34 posts so advertised by the respondent authorities. 5. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners having been placed at Serial Nos. 5 and 6 were so regularized in their services through a different process of selection and the posts utilized for the purpose was not within the 34 posts so advertised by the respondent authorities. 5. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners having been placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 of the Waiting List, it has to be construed that for the Reserved Category posts, the petitioners on merit figure at Serial Nos. 28 & 29, inasmuch as, the candidate placed at Serial No. 1 in Waiting List, had already in writing contended that he would not be interested to be appointed against the post so advertised vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 and accordingly, it is contended that the petitioners were entitled to be so appointed against the posts so advertised and available for such recruitment. The learned counsel has also contended that 4(four) candidates as selected against the Non-APST category vide the select list in question were so selected without disclosing their merit position in the selection process and accordingly, the appointment of the said 4(four) candidates so incorporated under the Non-APST Quota, requires to be examined as to whether they have scored higher marks than that of candidates now included in the APST Reserved Category in the select list and in the event, it is found that candidates as incorporated in the APST Reserved Category had secured more marks than that of the 4(four) candidates included in the Non-APST Category of the select list, then such APST Reserved Category candidates must be considered against the Non-APST Category candidates; and the 4(four) vacancies now becoming available ought to be utilized against recruiting petitioners herein on the basis of their merit position as obtained in the said selection. 6. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that in the recruitment process as initiated vide the advertisement in question, there being no provision for considering cases of candidates under compassionate appointment category, incorporation of one of such candidate in the select list against the post so advertised has clearly deprived the petitioners herein or, atleast one of the petitioners herein form being appointed against the posts so advertised. 7. In the above premises, Mr. 7. In the above premises, Mr. Tapak, learned counsel submits that the recruitment process as culminating in the select list in question, requires to be re-examined and this Court would be pleased to carry out the said re-examination and on the basis thereof, proceed to issue appropriate directions, including direction for appointment of the petitioners herein against any of the posts so advertised. 8. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Health and Family Welfare Department, by referring to the affidavit as filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter has contended at the outset that the respondents no. 5 & 6 were so regularized in their services against posts not forming part of the recruitment process as advertised, vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, and they were so recruited against posts reserved for such category of candidates. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioners herein can have no grievance with regard to the regularization as effected against distinct and separate vacancies in respect of the respondents no. 5 & 6. It was contended that the Waiting List, wherein, the petitioners names so figured was so incorporated in the select list to ensure that in the event, any of the selected candidates not joining their services, the recruitment process as initiated in the matter is not rendered futile and there would exist candidates who can replace such candidates not joining their services. It is contended that all the selected candidates having joined their respective services, there existed no further post for accommodating the petitioners herein. 9. Mr. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel has clarified that vide the order dated 16.11.2016, posting orders were issued in respect of the 32 numbers of selected candidates and vide a separate order dated 27.04.2017, one candidate came to be appointed against the 5% Quota reserved for compassionate ground appointees. Accordingly, it is contended that all the 33 posts so advertised were filled up. It is further contended that the selection and appointments as made in respect of the candidates, whose name figured in the select list in question, does not need any interference from this Court. 10. Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the Deputy Commissioner has at the outset submitted that the respondents no. It is further contended that the selection and appointments as made in respect of the candidates, whose name figured in the select list in question, does not need any interference from this Court. 10. Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the Deputy Commissioner has at the outset submitted that the respondents no. 5 & 6 were so regularized in their respective services against two different vacancies, which were not incorporated in the recruitment process as initiated vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 and accordingly, it is contended that the petitioners can have no grievance with regard to such regularization effected in respect of the respondents no. 5 & 6. It was further contended that the Selection Committee had prepared the select list in question of successful candidates, strictly, in accordance with the merit position as obtained by them in the selection process and accordingly, the contentions as raised in the matter by the petitioners contrary to the said position was disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents. 11. Ms. Basar, learned Government Advocate has further contended that after the publication of the advertisement in question and 34 posts being notified for recruitment thereto, the respondent authorities had issued a corrigendum on 04.08.2016, removing from the purview of the said selection process one post allotted for person under Sports Quota in the District. Accordingly, in the said corrigendum/notice, it was specified that the recruitment now would be limited to 33 posts and not 34 posts as advertised. It is also contended by Ms. Basar, learned counsel that all the selected candidates having joined their respective posts against which they were selected and appointed, there arose no vacancy for consideration of the case of the petitioners herein. Accordingly, it is contended that the claims as made in the present proceeding does not merit a consideration by this Court in view of the existing facts and circumstances. 12. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondents no. Accordingly, it is contended that the claims as made in the present proceeding does not merit a consideration by this Court in view of the existing facts and circumstances. 12. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 & 6 by referring to the affidavit as filed by the said respondents in the matter has contended that the said respondents having been regularized in their services against distinct and separate posts, which do not form a part of the posts as involved in the recruitment process as initiated by the respondent authorities vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, the petitioners would have no locus to assail the appointments made in respect of the respondents no. 5 & 6. Mr. Tara, learned counsel has further by drawing the attention of this Court, to a communication dated 12.02.2018, available at Annexure-14 to the writ petition has contended that inspite of being made aware that the respondents no. 5 & 6 were so regularized in their services against posts falling under the promotional quota and not included within the posts advertised vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016, the petitioners had without presenting a challenge to the selection of persons incorporated in the select list in question, impleaded without any basis the said respondents no. 5 & 6 in the present proceedings, which clearly is not permissible. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 14. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioners while preferring the instant writ petition had also annexed a communication dated 12.02.2018, issued by the DMO, Upper Siang District, Yingkiong, wherein, it was categorically pointed out that the respondents no. 5 & 6 were regularized in their services against posts so utilized against Promotional Quota and that the posts so involved were not included within the 34 posts that was advertised vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016. The said communication had also brought on record that the Waiting List as prepared in the selection against various categories was so prepared to ensure that in the event any of the selected candidates failed to join or, resign within 6(six) months from the date of declaration of the result, the wait listed candidates as per merit can be considered for appointment against the said post so becoming vacant. The petitioner had also in the writ petition brought on record the select list as prepared in the matter by the respondent authorities, wherein, the posts involved were distributed amongst the various categories involved, including the candidate as selected for appointment on compassionate ground. In spite of the said materials having been brought on record by the petitioners in the writ petition, the petitioners had only impleaded the respondents no. 5 & 6, who admittedly, were not part of the recruitment process as initiated vide the advertisement dated 22.07.2016. Although it was known to the petitioners that persons have been incorporated in the select list under the Un-Reserved Quota as well as against the Compassionate Ground Quota, the petitioners have not impleaded any of the such persons incorporated in the said categories as party respondents in the present matter. The said position as evident from the writ petition was again reiterated in the pleadings brought on record by the State respondents on 12.09.2019 and 04.03.2020; and it is seen that in spite of such information being made available to the petitioners, they have not taken any steps to implead as party respondents, the persons, who have been selected under Un-reserved Category and or, under the Compassionate Ground Category. 15. In view of the said position, the contentions as raised by the petitioner in the matter, questioning the incorporation of candidates against the Unreserved Quota as well as against the compassionate ground appointment quota in the said select list dated 05.11.2016, does not merit consideration by this Court, inasmuch as, in the event, this Court comes to the conclusion that the incorporation of the said persons were not so made in the manner so required; and interference is called for with regard to their such incorporation, the rights of such persons would be adversely affected and as such without hearing them no order adverse to their interest can be passed in the matter. 16. 16. In view of the said position and admittedly, the petitioners, in spite of being armed with the select list dated 05.11.2016, as well as the reiteration of such materials in the affidavits filed by the State respondents on the dates above noted, having not taken any steps for impleading such candidates whose selection is now being questioned, in the present proceeding, this Court is not in a position, in view of the facts and circumstances existing in the matter, to consider such contentions raised by the petitioners herein. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present proceeding do not merit a consideration and accordingly, the same are rejected. 17. Insofar as the persons impleaded as respondents no. 5 & 6 in the present proceeding, it is seen that the said persons were so regularized in their services in pursuance to a separate and distinct process and against posts which admittedly, was not within the purview of the advertisement dated 22.07.2016. As such, this Court is not called upon to examine the validity of the regularization as effected in the case of the respondents no. 5 & 6. 18. The further contention of the petitioners herein that the posts advertised vide advertisement dated 22.07.2016 being 34 in numbers, the same could not have been reduced by the respondent authorities, subsequently, on the ground of removal of Sports Quota from the purview of the said process of process of recruitment, does not merit any acceptance in view of an absence to the challenge to the notice dated 04.08.2016. Further, the authorities have clarified in their affidavit that the reduction in the number of posts so advertised, was so mandated on account of the subsequent withdrawal by the Government of the post allotted for Sports Quota and accordingly, the number of posts as put up for recruitment was reduced to 33. Accordingly, in the absence of materials being brought on record by the petitioners disputing the said position, this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate the prescription as made in the said notice dated 04.08.2016. Accordingly, the selection as undertaken must be understood to have been so undertaken for 33 posts and not 34 posts. 19. Accordingly, in the absence of materials being brought on record by the petitioners disputing the said position, this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate the prescription as made in the said notice dated 04.08.2016. Accordingly, the selection as undertaken must be understood to have been so undertaken for 33 posts and not 34 posts. 19. The respondents in the affidavit have made categorical assertion to the effect that the candidates as placed in the select list in question was so placed, strictly, in accordance with the merit position as obtained by each one of them in the selection process and such assertion not being disputed by the petitioners by bringing on record materials to establish any falsehood in such assertion made by the respondents, this Court would hold that the select list in question as prepared in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.07.2016 was so prepared basing on the merit of the candidates as assessed in the selection process held and that the same does not call for any interference. 20. The other contentions as raised by the petitioners with regard to the incorporation of candidates in the select list against the Non-APST Category does not call for any consideration, in view of the assertion of the respondents that the candidates were incorporated in the select list on their respective merits and also on the ground that such candidates are not made party respondents in the present proceedings. 21. The contention of the petitioners with regard to the incorporation in the select list, against the vacancies advertised, a candidate so selected for appointment on compassionate grounds, is not being considered as such candidate whose rights are being called upon to be examined in this Court, in the matter, has not been arrayed as a party respondent in the matter. Accordingly, the contentions as made by the petitioners in this connection also stands rejected. 22. In view of the above conclusions, the present writ petition does not merit acceptance and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.