WP(C) 382/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D M Thakuria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also hear d Mr. B Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Finance Department representing the official respondents. 2. The petitioners seek a direction for their appointment as Asstt. Audit O fficers under the Director of Audit (LF), Assam in pursuant to their selection a fter responding to the advertisement dated 22.10.1997. The names of the present petitioners (18 in numbers), namely, Sri Amal Thakuria, Sri Mrinal Kr. Sarma, Sr i Sayta Narayan Das, Sri Arjun Kalita, Md. Rajib Ali, Sri Luken Ojha, Sri Pranji t Kr. Bharali, Sayed Mainul Haque, Sri Sanjib Kr. Dutta, Sri Harballav Talukdar, Sri Dhanjit Sutradhar, Sri Sanjit Kr. Saha, Sri Aswini Kr. Kalita, Sri Rajibur Rahman, Sri Kulen Das, Sri Dipankar Das, Sri Kamalesh Das and Sri Dhanjit Ojha w ere enlisted in the select list dated 8.5.2001. 3. Although the numbers of available vacancies were not notified in the adv ertisement, it is the admitted position that the recruitment process was initiat ed for 70 vacancies and in the select list, 4 times of the number of existing va cancies in order of merit were notified. Thereafter 70 selected persons were app ointed in the year 2002. But when 23 additional appointments were given in Febru ary 2003, some of the present petitioners and others referred to the said additi onal appointment and made a claim for their own appointment as their merit posit ions were below the appointed persons. But this Court by order dated 31.3.2004 h eld that as appointments for the available vacancies have already been made, the re cannot be a Court direction for further appointment from the remaining names in the select list. 4. Another W P (C) No.1995/2005 filed by some of the preset petitioners cla iming similar relief was also dismissed on 11.3.2005 wherein the Court held that as the select list was prepared for 70 vacancies as is reflected in the select list and since the writ petitioners were not within the zone of consideration fo r the 70 available vacancies, they are not entitled to claim appointment. It was also held that a select list prepared at a particular point of time cannot be m ade operative for future vacancies and the Court specifically declared that sinc e all the 70 vacancies have been filled up, the select list got automatically e xpired . 5. The later decision of the Authority to give appointment to the private r espondents have induced the writ petitioners to make a fresh claim for appointme nt w.e.f. the date of appointment of the private respondents. After this Court g ave its verdict on 11.3.2001 in W P (C) No.1995/2005 holding that the select lis t got automatically expired , no justification for appointment from the remaini ng persons in the select list can be entertained by this Court. 6. In so far as the appointments given to the private respondents, the pet itioners do not challenge such additional appointment as they themselves claim t he benefit of similar appointment. In fact the respondent No.10 Manoj Kr. Saika, who has been given appointment on 4.10.2005 (Annexure-9) by the Director of Aud it (LF), Assam was one of the person who was amongst the petitioner(s) (No.15) i n W P (C) No.1995/2005 whose claim to get appointment was specifically rejected by the Court. The private respondent No.12 Afzal Haque Choudhury was also a writ petitioner(s) (No.13) in the previous writ petition i.e. W P (C) No.1995/2005. 7. Considering the fact that the select list dated 8.5.2001 has already exp ired and there is a judicial pronouncement to that effect on 11.3.2005 in W P (C ) No.1995/2005, I do not see how the claim for appointment made by the petitione rs on the basis of an aforesaid expired select list is justified in law. Accordi ngly writ petitioners’ claim for appointment stands rejected. 8. Although the petitioners do not challenge the appointment of the private respondent Nos.4 to 16, for pursuing their own cause, considering the declarati on made by the Court on 11.3.2005 in W P (C) No.1995/2005 on the select list, I consider it appropriate to direct the State and more particularly the Commission er to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Establishment Department to take note of the p resent proceeding and to decide on the legality of the appointment(s) given to r espondent Nos.4 to 16, namely, Md. Sajad Hussain, Sri Debajit Borah, Sri H iranmoy Bhuyan, Md. Safiqur Rahman, Sri Bhupesh Chandra Das, Sri Jiban Mahanta, Sri Manoj Kr. Saikia, Ms. Manju Kalita, Sri Afzal Haque Choudhury, Sri Diganta B ayan, Sri Dhiraj kr. Das, Sri Saroj Kr. Das and Sri Safiul Islam Mazumdar, as th ey appear to have been appointed, in contravention of the law of the land and al so the decision(s) given by the Court on 11.3.2005 in W P (C) No.1995/2005 and o n 31.3.2004 in W P (C) No.2744/2003 respectively and other cases. Appropriate st eps are ordered to be taken by the Commissioner to ensure that no undeserved app ointment benefits are enjoyed by any one from the select list dated 8.5.2001. Ho wever if any adverse action is to be taken against the appointee, they must be a fforded an opportunity. 9. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of th is order be furnished to Mr. B Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Finance D epartment for appropriate communication and compliance.