WP(C) 8569/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been fi led by as many as 11 persons praying for a writ, inter alia, in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as teachers in Primary Sc hools as per Select List dated 18.3.2000. Heard Shri D K Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri D.Das, learn ed senior standing counsel, BTC assisted by Mr. K Das, Ms.M.Bardoloi, advocates appearing for respondents No. 1,2,3,4 and 8. Also heard Shri M R Pathak, learned standing counsel Education Department. Shri Saikia, learned counsel submitted that in the year 1999 the Deputy Inspecto rs of Schools, Bajali published an advertisement inviting applications from int ending candidates for appointment in L.P.Schools/ ME/MV Schools. Shri Saikia sub mitted that for the purpose of selection of teachers the Bodoland Autonomous Cou ncil constituted Selection Boards at the District Levels as well as Sub-Division al Levels vide order dated 25.6.1998. It is the further case of the petitione rs that pursuant to advertisement the petitioners appeared in the interview that was held on 4.11.1999 and 5.11.1999 and thereafter the Selection Board prepa red a select list and the same was forwarded by the Deputy Inspector of Schools to the Director of Education, BAC on 6.1.2000. According to the learned counsel as many as 70 names were forwarded for approval but instead of giving appointment from the select list the concerned au thority acted whimsically and appointed many persons outside the list. In additi on to this submission, the learned counsel also submitted that in identical matt ers this court has directed the respondents to give appointment as per select li st vide order passed in W.P(C)No.893 of 2002 and W.P(C)No.2048 of 2005. On the other hand, Shri Das, learned standing counsel, BTC submitted that the en tire selection was dehors to the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977. According to the learned counsel, in the advertisement, there was no indication as to the number of vacancies and other requirements of Rue 3. Be sides this, Sri Das also submitted that under Rule 3 of the Rules the Select Lis t remains valid for one year and the writ petition has been filed beyond validit y period of the select list. On this ground also no mandamus can be issued. The learned counsel further submitted that the orders given in other writ petitions may not be followed in the present case inasmuch as the earlier orders were pass ed on the basis of vacancies, however, now the vacancies have already been fille d up by now. For ready reference, the order dated 11.9.2007 passed in W.P(C)No.893 of 2002 is reproduced below: BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI 11.9.2007 Pursuant to the order dated 20.8.2007 instructions have been conveyed to the le arned Standing Counsel, BTC which is to the effect that thirty posts of LP Schoo l Teachers now available for being filled up, will be so filled from the existin g select list and in the event there is more than one select list , by candidate s whose names are common in two or more select lists as may be existing. The can didates whose names do not appear in all the select lists will not be appointed and if there are any excess vacancies, the same will be advertised. Without expressing any opinion on the legality or correctness of the action prop osed to be taken, the Court is of the view that this writ petition should be clo sed at this stage with no further order, save and except that if the petitioners or any one is aggrieved by such consequential action that may be taken, it w ill be open for them to approach this Court once again, if so advised. This disposes of the writ petition. Writ petition No.2048 of 2005 was disposed of vide order dated 1 8.1.2008 in the following words: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this petition stands closed noticing the identicalness of the facts and the grievance raised, in terms of th e order dated 11.9.2007 passed in WP(C)No.893/2002 It may be mentioned here that W.P(C)No.893 of 2002 was filed by as many as 15 selected candidates, whereas subsequent writ petition was filed by as many as 30 persons. The peculiar features of both the writ petitions are tha t 15 petitioners in W.P(C)No.893 of 2002 were also writ petitioners in W.P(C)No. 2048 of 2005. Hence, it can be inferred that the second writ petition was s cont inuation of previous writ petition that was filed within the validitiy period of select list. However, the present writ petition has been filed only in the year 2004 and by that time the validity of the select list was also over. The learned counsel could not produce any document or order from the BTC t o take a view that the validity of the select list was extended. Shri Saikia, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners in W.P(C)No. 893 of 2002 and W.P(C) No.2048 of 2005 obtained orders on the basis of the list approved by the Secretary of erstwhile BAC, who was not the appropriate authori ty under the Rules. To put it differently, it is the submission of the learned c ounsel that since rules only authorizes the Director of Education to approve the select list the petitioners in earlier writ petitions were not entitled to get appointment on the basis of a select list that was approved by an competent auth ority. In my considered opinion that aspect cannot be examined by this court. The above apart, the select list appended with the writ petition also su ffers from discrepancies. As per the Resolution of the selection board as many a s 77 persons were selected against 29 vacancies, however, in the list forwarded by the District Elementary Education Officer, Barpeta to the Director of Educati on, BAC on 6.1.2000 for approval names of only 70 candidates for L P Schools ar e found. In this way, there is discrepancy in the list forwarded by the DEO and the select list prepared by the Board. Besides this, the petitioners are seeking mandamus for their appointment on the basis of Select List dated 18.3.2000, however, the petitioners have appended Sel ect List of 4.1.2000 that was forwarded for approval on 6.1.2000. The learned co unsel also could not clear this confusion. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners also p roduced a copy of the letter No.DE/APPT/BAC 11333-A dated 18.3.2000 written by t he Deputy Inspectors of Schools, Bajali to Director of Education, BAC wherein, i t has been mentioned that only 26 posts were vacant. Even in Resolution No.4 of the selection board it has been indicated that the list of 77 candidates has be en prepared in the ratio of 1:3. This Resolution No.4 also indicates that the va cancies for Primary Teachers were 26. In the meantime all the vacancies have bee n filled up by virtue of orders passed by this court in W.P(C)No.893 of 2002 and W.P(C)No.2048 of 2005. In this way no further vacancy exists as on today to gi ve any relief to the petitioners. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed.