ORDER : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. C. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. W. Ahmed, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5, herein, to the post of Shahayak, in pursuance to a selection held in the matter. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was working as a casual Shahayak in the establishment of the respondent no.3, i.e., the Deputy General Manager, Nagaon Electrical Circle, CAZ, APDCL. The petitioner also projects that after having worked for around 7 years, 8 months, his services were not regularized and he continued to discharge his duties as a casual Shahayak. At this stage, the APDCL authorities, initiated a process for selection against the post of Shahayak and for the purpose, both the casual Shahayaks and persons having the ITI qualifications were made eligible for participation, therein. The petitioner being a casual Shahayak, forwarded his candidature for recruitment against the post of Shahayak. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with a calling letter dated 24-08-2009. In the said calling letter, the petitioner's roll number for the selection was denoted as ‘D-083’. ‘D’ stands for Departmental Candidate. The petitioner further projects that the respondent no.5, herein, had not submitted his candidature for the selection process. However, when the final select list was so published, the name of the respondent no.5 was found at serial no.36 of the waiting list. However, the roll no. shown, therein, was that of the petitioner. The petitioner projects that after receiving the requisite informations, he had instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. C Deka, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that in the waiting list annexed as Annexure-C to the present writ petition, at serial no.36, the name of the respondent no.5 figures, however, his roll no. has been denoted as ‘D-083’, which in fact is the roll no. of the petitioner, herein. He submits that the same would reveal that it was the petitioner who was selected but was substituted in the select list by the respondent no.5. He submits that the original records of the matter, although directed to be produced by this Court, have been projected by the APDCL authorities to be missing. Mr. of the petitioner, herein. He submits that the same would reveal that it was the petitioner who was selected but was substituted in the select list by the respondent no.5. He submits that the original records of the matter, although directed to be produced by this Court, have been projected by the APDCL authorities to be missing. Mr. Deka, has further referred to an RTI reply received by him on 26.02.2015, wherein it was noted by the authorities of APDCL that the actual roll no. of the respondent no.5 is 083(ITI) and that of the petitioner, herein, is D-083(DEPTD). However, in the select list, against the name of the respondent no.5, roll no. ‘D-083’ was wrongly inserted instead of ‘083’. He submits that while filing the affidavit in opposition, the respondents have taken a different plea and therein have contended that the prefix ‘D’ against the roll no. of the respondent no.5 was inserted by the petitioner. Mr. Deka, accordingly submits that the respondents have taken different stands in the matter at different stages of the proceeding. Accordingly, he submits that the roll no. of the petitioner figuring in the select list, he must be construed to be the one selected for the appointment and accordingly this Court would be called upon to interfere with the appointment effected in the case of the respondent no.5, with consequential directions to the APDCL authorities to appoint the petitioner against the post of Shahayak retrospectively, with all consequential benefits. Mr. C. Deka has further submitted that the respondent no.5 was never a candidate in the selection process and he was incorporated in the select list by certain authorities in the organization favourable to him, to the prejudice of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 had submitted his candidature for the selection process and his name is duly entered in the register of ITI pass candidates. On the application of the respondent no.5 being found to be suitable, he was allotted roll no.83. On conclusion of the selection process, it is submitted that the select list prepared, which has been indicated to have been brought on record in the affidavit, reflects that the respondent no.5 is placed at serial no.36 of the waiting list and therein against his name, roll no. was recorded as ‘083’. On conclusion of the selection process, it is submitted that the select list prepared, which has been indicated to have been brought on record in the affidavit, reflects that the respondent no.5 is placed at serial no.36 of the waiting list and therein against his name, roll no. was recorded as ‘083’. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in pursuance to directions passed by this Court for production of the original records, a search was made and it was revealed that earlier an enquiry was also held in the matter and a copy of the enquiry report was brought on record by way of filing an additional affidavit. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the perusal of the enquiry report dated 29.03.2022 would reveal that the respondent no.5 was a candidate for the selection involved and on his selection, he was appointed against the post of Shahayak. It is further projected that the respondent no.5 has since also been promoted to the next higher post. The learned counsel for the respondents in the above, has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to effectively demonstrate that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner. It is submitted that the select list as annexed by the petitioner was so annexed by him by taking his signature on the said select list of the officer concerned by incorporating the prefix ‘D’ to the Roll No. of the respondent no.5. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the claim of the petitioner, herein, would not mandate any interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The rival contentions made by the parties to the proceedings would bring on record a disputed position with regards to the facts involved. However, basing on the materials on record, this Court has endeavoured to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The basis for the case of the petitioner is a select list dated 15.11.2014, brought on record of the present proceedings as Annexure-B, & C, respectively. A perusal of the said select list annexed as Annexure-B & C would reveal that the same has a signature of one of the Assistant General Manager (HR) Nagaon, Electrical Circle, APDCL, CAZ, Nagaon, Assam. A perusal of the said select list annexed as Annexure-B & C would reveal that the same has a signature of one of the Assistant General Manager (HR) Nagaon, Electrical Circle, APDCL, CAZ, Nagaon, Assam. In the waiting list as brought on record vide Annexure-C at serial no.36, thereof, the name of the respondent no.5 figures, however the Roll no. assigned to him, therein, is ‘D- 083’. The respondent no.5 admittedly is not a departmental candidate and cannot be assigned a roll no. with the prefix ‘D’. The respondent no.5 was an ITI passed candidate. What is interesting here is that, while the petitioner had placed reliance on the select list at Annexure B & C respectively, but in paragraph 9 of the writ petition he has questioned the same select list. The contention raised by the petitioner in paragraph-9, being relevant is extracted hereinbelow; “ 9.That the petitioner most respectfully further states that the result of the aforesaid physical test and interview was published on 15.11.2014 i.e., more than 5(five) years elapsed from the date of the aforesaid physical test and interview were held and the select list published on 15.11.14 has been signed only by the Assistant General Manager (H.R) and there appears no signatures of other members of the Selection committee/Interview Board which might indicate the lack of fair play in finalizing the above said select list.” A perusal of the said contention would reveal that the petitioner has questioned the preparation of the said select list and accordingly, this Court cannot envisage a situation, wherein after questioning the select list, in question, the petitioner is also trying to take advantage, thereof. 8. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.5 has not submitted his candidature in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the matter for recruitment to the post of Shahayak. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection had placed reliance upon the list of candidates participating in the selection process, brought on record as Annexure-D to the writ petition. A perusal of the Annexure-D would reveal that the same is a typed copy, there is no disclosure made in the writ petition as to the manner in which the petitioner had received the said list. A perusal of the Annexure-D would reveal that the same is a typed copy, there is no disclosure made in the writ petition as to the manner in which the petitioner had received the said list. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view, that no credence can be given to the said list. 9. Having noticed the said position, this Court finds that the respondents in their affidavit have brought on record, a list of ITI passed candidates, who had submitted their candidature in pursuance to the advertisement, in question, and therein the name of the respondent no.5 figures at serial no.88. The said being an official document, this Court cannot ignore the same, more so when the same has not been demonstrated to have not been produced from the record of the respondents. 10. This Court further finds that the respondents have also brought on record in the additional affidavit filed, the call letter issued to the respondent no.5. A perusal of the call letter issued to the respondent no.5, reveals, that he was assigned the roll no.’083’ in the selection process. The respondents have also annexed a select list along with their affidavit and therein, it is seen that the same, in so far as, signature of the authorities figuring therein, defers from the one produced by the petitioner, herein. In the said select list more particularly in the waiting list thereof, at serial no.36, the name of the respondent no.5 figures, however the roll no. assigned to him in the present select list is ‘083’. This Court has also considered an enquiry report dated 29.03.2022, relied upon by the respondents in their additional affidavit, wherein, again after noticing the facts noticed by this Court, hereinabove, it was reiterated that it was the respondent no.5 with roll no. ‘083’ who was selected for appointment against the post of Shahayak and the petitioner, herein, was not a selected candidate for the said post. 11. In view of the above discussions as well as the disputed questions of the fact coming on record, this Court refrains from interfering with the selection and appointment of the respondent no.5 as Shayayak. ‘083’ who was selected for appointment against the post of Shahayak and the petitioner, herein, was not a selected candidate for the said post. 11. In view of the above discussions as well as the disputed questions of the fact coming on record, this Court refrains from interfering with the selection and appointment of the respondent no.5 as Shayayak. Further, this Court also opines that the petitioner, herein, failed to establish his claim that he was selected candidate and accordingly, this Court is not in a position to extend any benefit to the petitioner, herein, as claimed in the present writ petition. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, however there would be no order as to costs.