JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. M Das, learned counsel for WP(C) 217/2024, WP(C) No.5450/2022, Mr. M K Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.7269/2021 and Mr. D S Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.7272/2022, Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.8211/2022 and Mr. M Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.336/2023. 2. These batches of writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal, as the cause of action for filing such writ petitions, the challenges made, and the issues involved are similar. 3. The petitioners are unemployed youth, and they participated in a selection process conducted by the Education Department for filling up Grade-III and Grade-IV posts by way of two advertisements dated 28.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Advertisements dated 28.02.2019). 4. Under the aforesaid advertisements, the petitioners applied against different categories i.e, Grade – III and Grade-IV, the details of which are not recorded herein, as it is not very relevant for the determination of the issues involved since the petitioners are aggrieved by a decision of the Special Commissioner of the Elementary Education Department, dated 09.11.2021, whereby, the recruitment process initiated under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019 was cancelled with a decision to start a fresh recruitment process including certain new vacancies. 5. Another challenge made in these writ petitions is an order dated 15.11.2021, passed by the Director of Elementary Education pursuant to the determination made by the Special Commissioner under the impugned order dated 09.11.2021. 6. Yet another challenge is the subsequent advertisement dated 25.03.2022, issued by the State Level Recruitment Commission for filling up of different Grade-III and Grade-IV posts, including the posts advertised under advertisements dated 28.02.2019. 7. To deal with the aforesaid challenges, let this court first record the essential facts in a nutshell. I. On 28.02.2019 the Director of Elementary Education issued two advertisements for filling up of various posts of Grade-III & Grade-IV respectively under the Department of Elementary Education, Assam. II. While the recruitment process was going on, WP(C) 2370/2020 was filed by some of the candidates challenging the recruitment process based on certain news paper reports that there were large-scale anomalies in the selection process. II. While the recruitment process was going on, WP(C) 2370/2020 was filed by some of the candidates challenging the recruitment process based on certain news paper reports that there were large-scale anomalies in the selection process. This court under its order dated 09.06.2020, passed in the said writ petition, directed the respondents not to publish any select list of Grade-IV. III. Another writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2699/2020 filed, in which, this court under its order dated 13.07.2020, though declined to restrain the respondent authorities from going ahead and finalizing the selection process, however, balancing the equities, asked the respondents not to publish the select list without leave of the court. IV. While the writ petitions were pending, on 04.09.2020, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in Elementary Education Department conveyed its approval to the Director, Elementary Education to publish the result of written examination to the post of Grade-III & Grade-IV as per the existing rules and procedures, taking leave of the court before publication of the select list. Thereafter, the Commissioner & Secretary, once again, instructed the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, that as the government has already granted approval, the Director should publish the result of the written examination, so that the entire recruitment process could be completed. V. At that stage, some other candidates preferred a writ petition registered as WP(C) 226/2021, seeking a direction to declare the result of the written examination. This court, under its order dated 20.01.2021, asked the respondents to apprise the court about the status of the written examination held. VI. At that stage, the writ petitions preferred alleging anomalies in the recruitment process (as recorded hereinabove) were allowed to be withdrawn by this court under its order dated 31.08.2021. VII. Thereafter, the Director of Elementary Education by its impugned communication dated 24.05.2021, expressed certain apprehensions, (which will be dealt at later part of this judgment) and proposed to club all the existing vacancies of Grade-III & Grade-IV together under the Department of Elementary Education and to conduct a single recruitment drive by canceling the earlier advertisement. VIII. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.11.2021, was passed by the Special Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, whereby advertisements dated 28.02.2019 were cancelled, with a view to start the recruitment process afresh incorporating any other vacant post of the same grade pay etc. IX. VIII. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 09.11.2021, was passed by the Special Commissioner, Elementary Education Department, whereby advertisements dated 28.02.2019 were cancelled, with a view to start the recruitment process afresh incorporating any other vacant post of the same grade pay etc. IX. In view of the passing of such a speaking order, the writ petition seeking a declaration of result, i.e., WP(C) 226/2021, was closed by an order dated 11.11.2021, with liberty to the writ petitioners to approach this court. Some of the present petitioners were also writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. X. Thereafter, based on such speaking order, the Director of the Elementary Education Department, by the impugned communication dated 15.11.2021, cancelled the recruitment process in question and decided to start a fresh recruitment process for already advertised posts, including other vacant posts of the same grade and pay. It was also recorded in the aforesaid communication dated 15.11.2021, that the candidates who had applied and appeared in the written examination in pursuance of the advertisements dated 28.02.2019 need not apply again. XI. WP(C) 7269/2021 is preferred by assailing the speaking order dated 09.11.2021, as well as the order dated 15.11.2021, with a prayer to set aside the aforesaid orders and bring the selection to a logical conclusion, which was initiated based on the advertisement dated28.02.2019. XII. Thereafter, the state legislature notified “The Assam Direct Recruitment Commission for Analogous post in Class – III & Class - IV Act, 2021,” (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2021), with an object to regulate the process of direct recruitment for appointment to Class III & Class IV post in different offices under the Government of Assam by holding common selection through a commission to be constituted under the aforesaid Act, 2021. Accordingly, by a notification dated 05.03.2022, the Assam Direct Recruitment Commission for Analogous post in Class III and Class IV, Rules, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2022), was notified, creating the Assam Direct Recruitment Commission (hereinafter referred to as ADRC). Thereafter, the ADRC issued an advertisement on 25.03.2022 for the selection of Grade-III & Grade-IV posts. XIII. Claiming that these posts also include the posts which were advertised under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, WP(C) 5450/2022 is filed assailing the advertisement dated 25.03.2022 with a further challenge to the earlier orders of cancellation dated 09.11.2021 and 15.11.2021. Thereafter, the ADRC issued an advertisement on 25.03.2022 for the selection of Grade-III & Grade-IV posts. XIII. Claiming that these posts also include the posts which were advertised under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, WP(C) 5450/2022 is filed assailing the advertisement dated 25.03.2022 with a further challenge to the earlier orders of cancellation dated 09.11.2021 and 15.11.2021. This court, while entertaining the writ petition, under its order dated 25.11.2022, directed the respondents to keep 149 posts vacant, which were advertised by the advertisements dated 28.02.2019. 8. Thus, impugned communication dated 09.11.2021, 15.11.2021 advertisement dated 25.03.2022 and order dated 26.05.2020 are challenged in WP(C) 5450/2022, WP(C) 727/2022, WP(C) 8211/2022, , in WP(C) 336/2023 and WP(C) 217/2024, whereas, in WP(C) 7269/2021, though other challenges are same, there is no challenge to any advertisement inasmuch as this writ petition was filed prior to issuance of the impugned advertisement dated 25.03.2022 9. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, Mr. K.N. Choudhury and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsels and Mr.M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel argue that: I. Order dated 13.07.2020, passed in WP(C) 2699/2020, reflects that the senior counsel representing the Department took a stand that the allegation made in the writ petition regarding the anomalies in the selection under advertisements dated 28.02.2019 is not only vague but an afterthought and based on newspaper clippings without any authentication. Such a stand clearly reflects the stand of the state and therefore, the state cannot play hot and cold at the same time by taking two stands and cancel the entire selection process on the basis of allegations made in news paper, that too without having any subjective satisfaction as regards occurrence of such alleged anomalies and therefore, the reasons for cancellation are arbitrary. II. Though while taking the impugned decisions, the authorities had placed reliance on the order of this court dated 31.08.2021 passed in WP(C) No.2370/2020, WP(C) 2699/2020 and also on the order passed in WP(C) No.226/2021, and cites the same to be the basis of cancellation, however, the aforesaid orders only relates to withdrawal of the two sets of writ petitions i.e. claiming fresh selection and seeking direction of declaration of result and therefore, such action of the State itself shows non application of mind and absence of subjective satisfaction at the hands of the authority, who issued the impugned orders. III. III. The reasons cited in the impugned order for cancellation of the selection process cannot pass the judicial scrutiny of this court in the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there was no material or basis to cancel such a duly held selection process. The reason for cancellation is based on apprehension of defamation of the department on the basis of allegations published in newspapers and statements made in writ petitions, without there being any material, even prima facie, to cancel the selection, not to mention any enquiry to that effect. IV. Though the state will be within its power to cancel a selection process and though it is correct to say that the selected candidates or candidates who has participated shall not have an indefeasible right to get appointed, however such decision should be based on reasons, which can pass the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not at whims & fancies of the respondent. In support of such contention, reliance upon the decisions rendered in Pancharatna Cement (P) Ltd vs. Union of India and Ors., 2009 (6) GLR 459 , Anju Rani Baishya Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 2003 (3) GLT 522 , Amarendra Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 881 , Mahendran Malteesh Y. Annigeri Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 405 , Lt. CDR M. Ramesh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 16 SCC 195 , Asha Kaul Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1993 (2) SCC 573 are placed. V. The vacancies for which the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, were published relates to a date prior to issuance of the advertisement and therefore, such vacancies and post arising at that relevant point of time, cannot be clubbed for the subsequent selection process inasmuch as, by its letter dated 24.05.2021, the Director had himself admitted that there is increase in the number of vacancies subsequent to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019. In support, reliance on the decision rendered in Kerela State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Akhilesh V.S. and others, 2019 14 SCC 96 and Swapan Kumar Handique and Others vs. Padma Dhar Deka and Others, 2001 (1) GLT 281 are placed. VI. In support, reliance on the decision rendered in Kerela State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Akhilesh V.S. and others, 2019 14 SCC 96 and Swapan Kumar Handique and Others vs. Padma Dhar Deka and Others, 2001 (1) GLT 281 are placed. VI. Section 3 of the Act’ 21 lays down that the provision of the Act’ 2021, shall apply for the direct recruitment to all Class III and Class IV posts, both technical and non-technical and under the Govt. of Assam, however, the Govt is empowered to issue a specific or general notification to exclude certain posts or category of posts from the purview of the Act, 2021. Therefore, in the given facts of this case, the government ought to have exercised this power inasmuch as the same would have balanced the equity as well as the situation of clubbing vacancies would not have arisen. VII. In the given facts of the present case, the section 21 (1) of the Act, 2021, saves the selection process initiated by advertisements dated 28.02.2019, more particularly, for the reason that the Director by its communication dated 26.05.2022, clarified that those candidates who applied and appeared pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019, can also participate in the subsequent selection process, without making a fresh application and thus by this communication, for all meaning and purport, the earlier selection process is revived to its currency. Therefore, the writ petitions are required to be allowed by directing the respondents in the Elementary Education Department to declare the result of the written test held pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.02.2019 and to proceed further and complete the selection process as the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 28.02.2019 is saved by virtue of such provision. 10. Per contra, Mr. D Saikia, learned Advocate General contends: I. The state is not under any bounden duty to continue with the selection process, nor do the candidates who participated pursuant to the selection process have any indefeasible right to compel the state authorities to continue with such a selection process. II. It is a well-settled principle of law that even after publication of a select list, it would be open to the Government, not to fill up the vacancies and cancel the selection process, for the reason that even such a successful & selected candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. II. It is a well-settled principle of law that even after publication of a select list, it would be open to the Government, not to fill up the vacancies and cancel the selection process, for the reason that even such a successful & selected candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. At the same time, when in the present case, the selection process did not even reach the second stage of the selection, the petitioners cannot seek a direction to complete such a selection process. Therefore, on this count alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neelima Sangla Vs. State of Haryana, 1986 4 SCC 268 is relied upon. III. Taking note of public interest, purity of the selection, administrative convenience of holding a fresh common selection process and saving the government exchequer, as reflected in the decisions and orders impugned, the state has taken a conscious decision to cancel the entire selection process. The decision not to fill up the vacancies or to cancel the selection process is bona fide for appropriate reasons, and there is no malafide intention on the part of the state. It is a bona fide exercise of power to keep the public trust in the selection process and to have complete transparency in the selection process. Therefore, such a decision cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary, in the backdrop of the limited right of the petitioners. In this regard, the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sankarasan Das Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1991 3 SCC 47 is placed into service. IV. It is not always necessary to conduct an enquiry prior to cancellation of the selection, when allegations that selection is tainted and what is required is a prima facie satisfaction and such satisfaction is available on the record itself. Therefore, this court in exercise of its power of judicial review, may not interfere with such decision, more particularly, when the cancellation is not based only for the reason of allegations made but for administrative exigencies, administrative convenience, reduce cost etc. Therefore, this court in exercise of its power of judicial review, may not interfere with such decision, more particularly, when the cancellation is not based only for the reason of allegations made but for administrative exigencies, administrative convenience, reduce cost etc. V. The arguments of the petitioners as regards the provisions of the Act 2021 and the Rules 2022 are misplaced inasmuch as, it cannot be said that the order dated 26.05.2022 under the scheme of the Act’ 2021 is an order passed in exercise of power under Rule 3 of the Rules, 2022 . It is nothing but a benefit given to the candidates who participated in the cancelled selection process. And therefore, it cannot be said that such action shall revive the already cancelled selection process to save it, in terms of the proviso (1) to Section 21 of the Act, 2021. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop of arguments, let this court first deal with the advertisements. Clause (4) of the advertisement dated 28.02.2019 for filling up of Grade IV posts prescribes three phases of selection, i.e. written examination, writing ability test to assess the language skill and computer proficiency test. It is further mandated that the candidate must have to qualify in the first phase to appear in the second and third phases, respectively. It is an admitted position that at the time of cancellation, only the first phase was over and no result of the written test was declared. Thus, the selection process was at a very nascent stage. 12. So far, relating to the appointment of grade III posts, it is seen that a written examination (OMR/interview) was prescribed and was to be notified in due course. Thus, though it is not clarified as regards the procedure of selection, however, there are references to written examination/interview as per existing government rules. From the records available as well as the facts recorded hereinabove, it is clear that only a written test was held and the result was not declared in respect of Grade-III posts. Thus, it is clear that the selection process was not over; only the written examination was held. 13. Now, let this court deal with the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards the concession given by the senior standing counsel of the Education Department. Thus, it is clear that the selection process was not over; only the written examination was held. 13. Now, let this court deal with the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards the concession given by the senior standing counsel of the Education Department. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 26.07.2021 goes to show that the learned senior counsel representing the Education Department denied the allegation and further submitted that the allegations are vague and afterthought, based on newspaper clippings without there being any authentication. It was the specific stand of the learned senior counsel for the Education Department on 26.07.2021 that when the selection process has not been completed, the allegation of nepotism is premature. In the considered opinion of this court, the submissions so made can’t be treated as a concession given by the learned senior standing counsel for the department that the selection process was fair, absolutely clean, and there is no nepotism. Even if it is assumed that the argument of the learned senior standing counsel is treated to be the stand of the state, then also only based on such stand, it cannot be said that the government have already concluded that the selection process was transparent, clean and without any nepotism inasmuch as, the learned standing counsel took a specific stand that the writ petition itself is premature being filed only after completion of the written test and based on newspaper clippings. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, advanced in this behalf does not find favour of this court. 14. In the backdrop of arguments that the impugned order was passed only on apprehension and without any subjective satisfaction and that, without any objectivity, the selection was cancelled, this court has gone into the record in original produced by the learned standing counsel. 15. Now coming to the challenges made, the communication of the Director dated 24.05.2021 can be said to be the initiation/proposal for cancellation of the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019. 16. 15. Now coming to the challenges made, the communication of the Director dated 24.05.2021 can be said to be the initiation/proposal for cancellation of the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019. 16. From the aforesaid communications, what was expressed by the Director can be summarized as follows: A. The duty and responsibility to conduct the examination was though given to AMTRON, however, no tender process was initiated to engage the above noted third party and no price was fixed, by following the due process of rule and this aspect of the matter requires to be attended to ensure that there occurs no violation of financial rules and procedure at any level. B. After the conduct of the written examination by the aforesaid party, there were news items published raising a lot of allegations in respect of these ongoing processes of recruitment and on this basis, writ petitions were filed. C. The Director is apprehensive and thinks, that if the result of the written examination is declared, there may be further complaints and it would defame not only the Directorate but also the department of Education as a whole, whereas the Director in last few months have completed recruitment of as many as 11,763 regular teachers without any allegations or complaints. D. During the last few months, the vacancy has increased by 384 and apart from the aforesaid vacancies, the Director is ready to conduct a selection for the total vacant post of 1177 (Grade-IV) and a total of 1561 vacant posts of Grade-III and Grade-IV. E. The competent authority, therefore, may consider the aforesaid facts and circumstances and, instead of going ahead with the ongoing process started by advertisements dated 28.02.2019, may together conduct a single recruitment drive to fill up all existing vacancies of Grade III and Grade IV under DEE Assam as per the existing norms. F. Such exercise shall also be cost-effective and the entire process can be affected in a planned, organized and transparent manner by conducting back office verification of documents, etc., which was successfully been done by the Director by recently recruiting 11763 regular teachers. 17. F. Such exercise shall also be cost-effective and the entire process can be affected in a planned, organized and transparent manner by conducting back office verification of documents, etc., which was successfully been done by the Director by recently recruiting 11763 regular teachers. 17. This court in exercise of its power of judicial review cannot find fault with the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education Assam dated 24.05.2021, since, proposal of based on economic consideration (cost effectiveness) and to avoid controversies and to ensure transparency in as much as such was a proposal only and that too at a stage when the selection process was not complete, rather was at an initial stage. 18. Now coming to the decision on such a proposal, the record discloses that initially the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Elementary Education Department, took note of the aforesaid proposal and proposed that the contents of allegation published in news item as regards fairness of the selection process may be investigated to confirm it. However, the Special Commissioner, Elementary Education Department based on the proposal of the Director dated 24.05.2021, proposed to complete the selection process subject to improvement of Covid 19 situation and subject to taking leave from this court and publish the result with due leave from this court, which was also approved by the Education Minister. 19. Be that as it may, a fresh note was put by the senior AA(EED) on 29.07.2021, in reference to an order dated 26.07.2021 passed in WP(C) 226/2021. The said order reflects that the learned counsel for the Elementary Education to a query of this court informed the court that the departmental authorities are examining the matter, and depending upon the result of such examination, a final decision would be taken by the authorities within two weeks and whatever decision would be taken, same would be brought before the court in the form of an affidavit. 20. Accordingly, a fresh process of decision making was initiated, and a proposal was given by the Principal Secretary again referring to the earlier proposal of Director dated 24.05.2021 proposing cancellation of entire selection, however, he has not expressed any independent opinion as regards proposal of the Director, rather sought approval from the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, without straightaway allowing such a proposal, thought it prudent to take the opinion of the Advocate General. The Chief Minister, without straightaway allowing such a proposal, thought it prudent to take the opinion of the Advocate General. The Advocate General in his opinion after, perusal of the records, had found some anomalies, as well as he opined that the anomalies so alleged are specific and accordingly he opined, either for an enquiry and subject to outcome of such enquiry, either to proceed with such selection process or to cancel the same. At the same time, he also opined that no indefeasible right of the candidates are there and the government is within its domain to cancel such a selection process. Thereafter, the Chief Minister asked to start a fresh process to avoid delay, and accordingly, a speaking order was directed to be passed. 21. Thus, though initially a proposal for an enquiry was made by the joint Secretary to the department, however, the proposal of the Principal Secretary to proceed with the selection process already initiated, was approved by the Education Minister, as recorded hereinabove. The subsequent decision to cancel the selection was taken as recommended by the Chief Minister. The primary reason for such a decision is to avoid further delay in the recruitment process. Such a decision cannot be said to be unreasonable, more particularly, in the backdrop of the opinion of the Advocate General as well as of the Joint Secretary that an enquiry may be conducted. Secondly, the right of the participating candidates, as opined by the Advocate General, was also before the Chief Minister. The proposal of the Director dated 24.05.2021, which apprehended further litigation was also before the Chief Minister. 22. In this context, to scrutinize the legality and validity of such a decision to cancel selection, this court must also take note and consider the right of the candidates to have the selection concluded. 23. It is by now well settled that an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to fill up vacant posts at a particular department does not create any legal or fundamental right in favour of the participating candidate to get the selection completed and therefore, Writ of Mandamus to that effect cannot be issued inasmuch as, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, existence of a right and violation thereof at the hand of the state and/or, a corresponding duty upon the state is a sine qua non. 24. 24. Further, concerning the selection and recruitment process, it is equally well settled that by merely participating in a recruitment process, or sitting in the examination, or scoring good marks in the merit list, does not confer the participating candidate a legal or fundamental right in his favour for being appointed to the said post or conclusion of the selection process which can be enforced by way of issuance of a writ, except on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power. 25. In the case in hand, the petitioners cannot be said to be successful candidates, and they had only participated in the first phase of selection process by appearing in the written examination. So far relating to Grade-IV, there were still two phases to go and even the result of the written test was not declared. Therefore, the right of such candidates cannot be equalized with a candidate, whose name finds a place in the final select list after completion of a selection process. Aforesaid two categories, in the considered opinion of this court, is different. The right of a selected candidate for continuation of the selection process and to get appointed itself is very limited to the extent that such cancellation should not be arbitrary and or malafide. 26. On perusal of the record, this court has not found any arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. Though the Principle Secretary placed a proposal before the Chief Minister for cancellation of the entire selection process based on the proposal of the Director of Elementary Education, however, the Chief Minister instead of accepting such proposal sought further opinion from the Advocate General and subsequently after perusal of the opinion of the Advocate General and the relevant records recommended for cancellation of the selection process for the reasons recorded hereinabove, which in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be termed as unreasonable. The state taking note of administrative exigencies/considerations, such as convenience of holding a comprehensive selection process, economic consideration and to keep the public trust in a selection process, when there are allegation of anomalies, shall very well be within its right to abandon a selection process, more particularly, when the same is at a very early stage. The state taking note of administrative exigencies/considerations, such as convenience of holding a comprehensive selection process, economic consideration and to keep the public trust in a selection process, when there are allegation of anomalies, shall very well be within its right to abandon a selection process, more particularly, when the same is at a very early stage. The cancellation of such selection process for the reason discernible from the record, in the opinion of this court cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary, more particularly, in comparison to the limited right of the participating candidates, that too in absence of any material to suggest such cancellation for malafide reasons. After perusal of the material on records, pleading of the writ petitioners, this court is of the unhesitant opinion that the decision was taken giving due regard to the circumstances, balancing the right of the already participating candidates like the petitioners. 27. Thus, to conclude, the impugned proposal of the Director dated 24.05.2021 and the decision taken thereon, cannot be said to be without reason and to name it as decisions in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, compared to the right of a candidate like petitioners, who had only appeared in the written test and result of such written test was not even declared, when the entire selection process consist of more than one stage. 28. Now coming to the provision of section 21 of the Act, 2021, Section 21 saves a selection process which is at any stage of the recruitment pursuant to an advertisement on the date of enactment of the Act’ 2021. Section 3 of the Act makes the provision of the act applicable for direct recruitment to all Class III & IV posts under Government of Assam, with a rider that the Government by general or specific notification can exclude certain post or category of post from purview of the Act’ 2021. However, in the case in hand, on the date of coming into effect of the Act’ 2021, the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, was already cancelled, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a continuing selection process as prescribed under section 21 (1) of the Act’ 2021. 29. However, in the case in hand, on the date of coming into effect of the Act’ 2021, the selection process under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, was already cancelled, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a continuing selection process as prescribed under section 21 (1) of the Act’ 2021. 29. Coming to the decision of the state to allow the candidates like that of the petitioners, who participated in the written test under the advertisements dated 28.02.2019, in the considered opinion of this court, is a benefit granted to those candidates, so far relating to the fresh advertisement, allowing them to participate in the new selection process without applying afresh. Such a decision, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a specific or general notification issued in exercise of power under section 3 of the Act, 2021, excluding the post under advertisement dated 28.02.2019 from the purview of the Act 2021. It is also the opinion of this court that the order permitting the petitioners in fresh selection process, without applying afresh, is a benefit given to them and such benefit shall not revive the earlier selection process to treat it to be a selection process in continuance, to get the protection under section 21 (1) of the Act’2021, more particularly, when on the date of coming into effect of the act, the selection process was already cancelled and this court has already concluded that such cancellation cannot be interfered in exercise of power of judicial review. 30. Now coming to the argument of clubbing of vacancies, the judgments relied by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the given facts of the present case and are relatable not to direct recruitment inasmuch as when the state is within its right to appoint or to initiate a selection process for direct recruitment, it cannot be said that they will have to hold selection year wise always and under all circumstances. Therefore, such an argument also finds no favour with this court. 31. Accordingly, in the totality of the matter, more particularly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this court is of unhesitant opinion that all these writ petitions lack merit, and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated.