WA 315/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA Amitava Roy, J Register this application. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the review applicant and Mr. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department, Govt. of Assam for the offic ial respondents. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue for mal notice to other respondents. Shortly put, the facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application are that the review applicant along with others had participated in a selection process for appointment to a post of Lower Division Assistant (for short hereina fter referred to as the LDA) in the office of the Superintendent of Taxes, Barpe ta. On the culmination of the exercise undertaken, the review applicant was sel ected for the post. His appointment was put to challenge by one of the other co ntenders, namely- Shri Gitartha Nandan Das. His impugnment having been upheld b y the learned Single Judge, the review applicant preferred Writ Appeal No.315/20 09. This Bench did not, however, interfere with the determination made by the le arned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The recorded facts further disclose that one Smti Rita Das was appointed to the post, the writ pet itioner (Shri Gitartha Nandan Das) have been declined to join the same when offe red. In pursuing his challenge to the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge, the review applicant, as the judgment and order dated 22.11.2011 rendered in Wri t Appeal No.315/2009 would disclose, had pleaded with reference to Section 7 of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 (for short herei nafter referred to as the Act, 2005), that his selection having been interfered with, in terms thereof, the entire process ought to have been abandoned. This C ourt while dwelling on that contention of the review applicant while rejecting t he same observed as hereunder: 17. Section 7(1)(g) ordains that notwithstanding any other provision contain ed in any Act or Rules, the select list prepared for the fresh appointments to v acant sanctioned posts shall contain names equal to the number of vacant posts n otified at the time of calling for applications for filling up the posts. This edict not only is for the effectuation of the avowed purpose of regulating appoi ntments only to the sanctioned posts and, thus, obviate any uncalled for proflig acy, it engrafted as well a statutory bar to appointments made to posts beyond t hose earmarked and notified/advertised at the time of initiation of a public par ticipatory process therefor. 18. Section 7 of the 2005 Act, however, does not admit of an interpretation postulating lapse of a selection process in the event the candidates in the sele ct list equal to the number of sanctioned posts are not appointed thereto for an y reason whatsoever. The select list which essentially has to contain names equ al to the number of vacant posts advertised would, in our estimate, thus subsist vis-à-vis a vacancy that would remain unfilled for want of appointment thereto from the empanelled candidates. If a selection, as in the case in hand, is for o ne post and in terms of Section 7(1)(g) the select list enlists one candidate wh o eventually is unavailable for appointment, axiomatically the next candidate in rank ought to be construed to have been empanelled for recruitment. In this pr emise, it would be wholly illogical, according to us, if the whole selection pro cess is to lapse for the non-availability of the enlisted candidates though a ca ndidate next in order of preference is suitable as well as available to fill up the said post. The underlying purpose of limiting the size of the select list t o be commensurate with the vacancies being to guard against appointment beyond t he posts advertised/notified at the time of initiation of the process therefor, it would by wholly irrational to conclude that for the mere non availability of the selected candidate for appointment the entire exercise would be rendered oti ose. If, however, the enlisted candidate(s) is/are appointed and thereafter they abandon the post(s), the course inevitable would be a fresh selection. Mr. Das has emphatically reiterated that in view of the mandate of Section 7 (1) (g) of the Act,2005 that the size of the select list prepared for appointment o ught to be equal to the number of vacant posts notified to be filled up the find ing against the annulment of the selection process as recorded in the judgment a nd order dated 22.11.2011 rendered in Writ Appeal No.315/2009 suffers from error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review/reconsideration thereof on merits. Mr. Saikia, refuting the above, has submitted that this ground to say the least is not one contemplated in law for review of a judicial decision and thus ought not to be entertained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a close reading of the j udgment and order dated 22.11.23011 referred to hereinabove, we are constrained to sustain the objection raised on behalf of the official opposite party. A bar e perusal of the observations recorded in the paragraphs 17 & 18 of the aforemen tioned judgment would make it apparently clear that the plea now sought to be ad vanced was dwelt upon in details and answered. There is nothing discernible fro m the application to review or decipherable from the arguments made that this fi nding suffers from an error apparent from the face of the record as is contempla ted in law. This application/petition, therefore, lacks in substance and is dism issed. No costs.