WA 186/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Ranjan Gogoi, CJ (Acting) Heard Mr AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant/ writ pe titioner and Mr VM Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education. The appellant who was the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 4464/2009 is aggr ieved by the order dated 3.3.2010 by which the writ petition in question has bee n dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant/writ petitioner’s name appeared in serial No. 1 of a selec t list dated 13.11.99 prepared for appointment of Assistant Teachers in ME Schoo ls under the Jonia Legislative Assembly Constituency. According to the appellant / writ petitioner, though placed at serial No. 1 he was not appointed and person s below him in the select list were given appointment. The appellant has further averred that he had instituted a writ proceeding i.e. WP(C) No. 2768/2002 seeki ng a direction for his appointment and that the said writ petition was disposed of on 6.5.2002 by directing due consideration of his case for appointment. It wa s also directed that the respondents may extend by the period of validity of the select list, if so required. As appointment had not been conferred the writ pet ition in question i.e. WP(C) No. 4464/2009 was instituted by the appellant as th e writ petitioner. The validity of a select list prepared under the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977 is one year from the date of the recommendations contained therein. Admittedly, by the time the appellant/ petitioner had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 2768/2002 the select list had spent its force by efflux of time. Though a statement has been made by the learn ed counsel for the appellant that the first approach of the appellant/ writ peti tioner was in the year 2000 and the said writ petition was withdrawn, the said f act does not assist the appellant/ writ petitioner in any way. It is perhaps bec ause the select list had expired by the time the appellant/ writ petitioner had instituted WP(C) No. 2768/2002 that this Court did not issue a mandamus for appo intment of the appellant/ writ petitioner on the basis of his selection and had directed consideration of his case for appointment by suitable extension of the select list. Thereafter, what had happened is not very clear except that numero us correspondences were exchanged in this regard. Eventually, in the year 2009 t he appellant/ writ petitioner had approached this Court once again by means of t he writ petition in question i.e. WP(C) 4464/2009. The stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 4 464/2009 is that appointment cannot be given to the petitioner as the select lis t has expired. Not only the present approach of the petitioner to this Court but even his initial approach by means of WP(C) No. 2568/2002 was made after expiry of the select list. As the legal basis on which the appellant/ writ petitioner claims appointment had ceased to exist (select list having expired), no directio n for his appointment on the basis of his selection made in the year 1999 can be issued by the Court. We, therefore, respectfully agree with the view recorded b y the learned Single Judge in the order dated 3.3.2010. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circum stances of the case, we make no order as to cost.