Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010066842020 2025:GAU-AS:10856 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2105/2020 JAYADITYA CHAKRABARTY S/O- JAYANTA CHAKRABARTY, R/O- TARABHUSAN LANE, WARD NO. 10, NEAR STEAMERGHAT ROAD, KARIMGANJ- 788710 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MIN OF LAW, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REP. BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI- 781001 3:THE REGISTRAR (ADMN) CUM IN CHARGE CENTRALIZED RECRUITMENT GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI- 78100 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. S Choudhury Advocates for the respondent(s) :Mr. HK Das Page No.# 2/4 Standing Counsel, GHC Date of hearing & judgment :14.08.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. S Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. HK Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioner to the post of LDA/Copyist/Typist in the establishment of the District Judiciary of Karimganj wherein the petitioner applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 13.11.2018. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the advertisement dated 13.11.2018, it was notified that there were three vacancies to the post of LDA/Copyist/Typist in the establishment of the District Judiciary of Karimganj. Out of three posts, two posts were unreserved and one post was reserved for Schedule Tribe (Hills). The petitioner, who belonged to the un-reserved category participated in the said selection process and as per merit, she secured the second position after one Chandana Roy, who secured 90.5 marks as against the petitioner securing 88.5 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner thereupon was not appointed and as such, the present writ petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/4 4. The respondent had filed their affidavit on 09.04.2021 wherein details had been furnished that as on 18.08.2018, the vacancy position for LDA/Copyist/Typist in respect to the un-reserved category was only one and there was another vacancy in respect to Schedule Tribe (Hills). 5. It was further mentioned that as on 31.12.2018, there was no vacancy in the District Judiciary of Karimganj. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents as could be seen from the affidavit that in the advertisement dated 13.11.2018, it was wrongly mentioned that there were two vacancies in the un-reserved category in the District Judiciary of Karimganj which should have been only one. 6. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration to the submissions made and the pleadings on record. 7. From the materials on record, it transpires that though the advertisement dated 13.08.2018 stipulated that there were two vacancies in the un-reserved category, but in effect from the vacancy position shown in Annexure-1, Format-1 and Format-2 of the affidavit filed by the respondents, the vacancy position as on 18.08.2018 was one un-reserved post of LDA/Copyist and one reserved post for ST(Hills). It is further seen from the vacancy position as on 31.12.2018 that there was no vacancy as on that date. Page No.# 4/4 8. This Court also duly takes note of that the settled principles of law that merely being selected does not give a right to appointment. 9. In view of the above analysis, this Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the writ petition has to fail on the ground that the petitioner in the merit amongst the un-reserved category had secured the second position and, therefore, had no entitlement to be appointed to the single post of LDA/Copyist/Typist in the un-reserved category. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant