WP(C) 6000/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr KK Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the pe titioner and Mr MK Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, repre senting the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25th October, 2002 (A nnexure-VI) issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam (DSE) whereby t he petitioner’s claim for appointment on the basis of the select list dated 14.9 .92 (Annexure-I) in High School/ Higher Secondary School under the Botadrava Con stituency was rejected. In the first round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 14.3.2001 in WP(C) No. 4810/97 directed consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment in a High School. Accordingly, the DSE considering that the advertisement was issued in the year 1991 and select list was prepared in Augus t, 1992 and no vacant post to appoint the petitioner was available and consideri ng also that the select list had expired about 10 years ago, refused to give app ointment on the basis of the expired select list. 3. Arguing for the petitioner, it is contended by Mr Mahanta that few candidates whose names appeared below the petitioner were given appointment and, accordingly, the petitioner too should have been considered for appointmen t on the basis of the select list dated 14.9.92. The learned counsel further sub mits that appointment from the said select list was given until 2001 and the pet itioner should not be denied the benefit of appointment by considering that the life of the select list to have extinguished. 4. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted by Mr MK Mishra, l earned Standing Counsel, Education that the persons at serial No. 150 in the sel ect list dated 14.9.92 (where the name of the petitioner had appeared in serial No. 99) was appointed in an M.E. School and not in a High School. Similarly, the candidate at serial No. 125 was appointed against a Hindi Teacher’s post. Accor dingly, it is contended that there is no basis for the petitioner to allege that candidates with lesser merit position were given appointment to High School tea chers’ posts for which the petitioner was an aspirant. The learned Standing Coun sel further submits that the petitioner does not have a legally enforceable righ t for appointment on the basis of the outdated select list which was prepared in the year 1992. 5. I find from the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2003 in COP( C) No. 104/02 filed by the petitioner that the contempt proceeding was closed in view of the consideration made by the DSE through its order dated 24th October, 2002. Liberty was then granted to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be open to him in law. The petitioner has once again approached this Court basically to canvass a claim for appointment on the basis of the select list dat ed 14.9.92. But, it is seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as from the impugned order dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure-I) that no undeserved appointments were given from the select list dated 14.9.92. Petitioner at Sl. N o.99 couldn’t be appointed because of non-availability of vacancies, as the conc erned select list was prepared in the year 1992, I do not see how at this point of time a direction can be given for appointment of any person from such an outd ated select list as in the meantime several regular selection processes have tak en place in the State. Therefore, I see no infirmity in the order passed by the DSE on 25.10.2002. It is declared accordingly. 6. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar for t he petitioner to claim damage in appropriate forum if such a claim is maintainab le in law.