JUDGMENT
S.K. Kar, J.
1. It was submitted that all these nine cases can be disposed of by a common judgment as the facts are similar. These are taken up for verdict accordingly.
2. The petitioners, 15 (fifteen) in total, (7 in W.P.(C) 7136 and one each in others), submitted that they were selected by Sub-divisional Level Selection Board for Elementary education for appointment as L.P. School teachers in the meeting of the Board held on 29.12.1998 and the petitioners name appear in serial numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 41, 42, 43, 46, 76 and 77 of the list. The validity of the list was to continue till appointment of all of them is completed. That some of them fall under the OBC/ST quota of reservation. That the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 provide for the method of recruitment and the Rules came into force with effect from 16.3.1977.
3. Being selected, the petitioners contend that they were hoping to get the appointment letter as per their position in the select list. But unfortunately they came to learn that a new Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board has bee constituted which was making appointments violating the rules and by pick and choose method ignoring the candidates in the selection list. That person appearing below the petitioners in the select list and at Sl. Nos. 47, 50 and 78 have been issued appointment letters in an arbitrary manner which action is illegal and violative of equal protection of laws. That even persons outside the select list were appointed by the new Board violating all norms and procedures etc.
4. The petitioners prayed, inter alia, for quashing the appointment of non-selected candidates beyond list dated 29.12.1998, issue of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1-4 directing them to appoint the petitioners on the strength of select list dated 29.12.1998.
5. It will be noted that in W.P.(C) No. 5995 of 1999, (Simpal Duta v. State) & W.P.(C) No. 3398/2000 etc. This court passed earlier orders prohibiting respondents from giving appointments.
6. Records were called for but not forwarded.
7. Respondents failed to file any counter-affidavit in these cases. Therefore, the facts alleged in these petitions are neither admitted nor controverted. In such situation it is difficult to give verdict. Moreover, documents enclosed as annexes are only unauthenticated typed copies or photocopies only. The persons allegedly appointed have not been made parties (respondents) also. Therefore, there is no basis at all depending upon which any effective/positive order can be passed. The authenticity of the select list of 29.12.1998 also could not be assured before this court. Thus, appointment of persons cannot not be quashed in the manner desired by the petitioners, they being not before the court to say their say in this context.
8. Situated such, the petitions are being disposed of with the following directions :
(a) The petitioners will place/submit representations before the existing Sub-Divisional Level Selection Board concerned stating facts and asserting their individual and specific case within 30 days from today, certifying the validity, if any, of the selection list they are relying upon.
(b) Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 will thereafter consider such representations if and when made, examine the possibility of the accommodation of the petitioner (s) as per the relevant rules i.e. Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 or any other existing scheme and then pass appropriate orders, either accepting or rejecting the claim, as the case may be, strictly on the merit of the individual claim. And the exercise will be completed within 60 days of receiving the representations with a copy of this order.