WP(C) 815/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the 6 petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint them against the existing vacant posts of Forester G rade-I/Forest Guard and/or any other Grade-III/IV posts lying at the disposal of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). The petitioners have also prayed for settin g aside and quashing of the order dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure-17) passed by the P CCF, Assam declining to appoint the petitioners as has been prayed for. The said order was passed pursuant to the direction of this court in WP(C) No. 7897/2002 . The entire episode as reflected in this proceeding relates back to 1997, when th e matter relating to appointment of Grade-III and IV posts in BAC area got veste d with the Bodoland Autonomous Council. With the vesting of such power, the auth ority in the BTC made certain recommendations for appointment in the Forest Depa rtment as Forest Guard etc. Such recommendations were made by Annexure-4 series letters issued on various dates in the year 1998. The petitioners were the benef iciaries of such recommendations. Admittedly the recommendations were not on the basis of any regular selection pursuant to advertisement and giving equal oppor tunity to all eligible candidates. When the appointments were not made, the petitioners had approached this Court b y filing writ petitions and in one of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 7897/200 2 disposed of on 4.2.2003, the direction was issued to the PCCF, Assam to examin e the entire matter and pass appropriate order on the recommendations made by th e BAC. Alleging violation of the aforesaid order, the petitioners had approached this C ourt by filing contempt petition being COP(C) No. 889/2003, which was disposed o f by order dated 3.6.2006 taking note of the impugned order dated 13.12.2004 (An nexure-17). By the order passed in the contempt petition, the direction of this Court referred to above was considered and by doing so, conclusion was arrived a t that only direction of this court was to examine the matter in the light of at tending facts and circumstances. It was observed that such consideration and exa mination having been made based on which the impugned order dated 13.12.2004 was passed, there was substantial compliance of the direction of this Court. For a ready reference, the consequential order dated 13.12.2004, impugned in thi s proceeding is quoted below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS:ASSAM REHABARI :: GUWAHATI-781008 O.O. No. 862 Dated Guwahati, the 13th December’2004 Read: The writ petition (C) No. 7897/02 filed by Sri Dani Ram Brahma & others be fore the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court for appointment as per recommendation of the BAC. Read also: The parawise comments submitted by the Conservator of Forests, Wester n Assam Circle, Kokrajhar, dtd. 4.2.04. Read also: The order dtd. 3.2.03 passed in the WP(C) No. 7897/02 by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court wherein the respondent was directed to examine the entire mat ter and determine the vacancies available in Grade-III & Iv posts and then to co nsider and pass appropriate order on the recommendations made by the BAC. Read also: The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court direction in its hearing on 24.11.04 f or consideration of the claims of the petitioners within a period of 6 (six) wee ks communicated by the Sr. Govt. Advocate, Gauhati High Court vide his letter No . 7130, dtd. 25.11.04. Observation: (1) The Principal Secretary, BAC was requested vide this office letter No. FE.1/ disposal of Court Cases/2001, dtd. 15.10.03 to submit a penal list of this offic e and erstwhile Administrator, BAC vide his office letter No. E.BAC/FA/High Cour t/100/03/4, dtd. 15.11.03 informed this office that there was no penal list made by the BAC. (2) The BAC was repealed vide Govt. notification No. TAD/BTC/101/2003/6, dtd. 30 .5.03. (3) Ban on direct recruitment to Grade-III & IV posts or by regularization even in BAC areas communicated to this office vide Govt. letter No. FRE.102/2003/48 d td. Dispur the 22.1.04. (4) The Dy. Secretary, BTC vide his letter No. BTC/Forest-15/2004, dated Kokrajh ar, the 27.1.04 intimated this office that although there was a selection commit tee constituted by BAC, but the erstwhile the BAC without observing the formalit ies recommended 15 persons. Order: In view of the above findings, after careful examination of all facts and record, I am to order that the case of the petitioner for appointment on the re commendation of the BAC could not be considered. Sd/- (S.Doley, IFS) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Assam The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. Such affidavits are by the PCCF, Assam and the BTC. In both the affidavits, it has been categorically state d that the Annexure-4 series recommendations were made without there being any s anction of law and that there was no advertisement/selection and empanelment of candidates towards appointment in the Forest Department. It has also been stated that the recommendations for appointments were made on pick and choose basis an d not following the recruitment rules. The aforesaid stand of the respondents in their counter affidavits is also refle cted in the impugned order dated 13.12.2004. The petitioner has not denied such stand of the respondents by filing any reply affidavit. Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that there was no selection towards recommending the names of the petitioners. However, he submits that since at tha t relevant point of time, BAC was a new creation, the authority in the said Coun cil made recommendations to fill up the vacancies in consideration of the candid atures offered by the petitioners. He also submits that under similar circumstan ces, the appointment having been made, there cannot be any discrimination in res pect of the petitioners by not appointing them. Mr. D. Das, learned Standing Counsel, BTC assisted by Ms. M. Bordoloi, also lear ned Standing Counsel, BTC submits that when it is an admitted position that ther e was no selection for appointment, merely on the basis of certain recommendatio ns made by the then authority of the BAC for appointment of the petitioners, thi s Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constit ution of India will be reluctant to issue any direction for appointment. He also submits that if any appointments were made illegally that cannot be a ground fo r perpetuating the illegality. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties an d the materials on record. As noted above, there is no dispute that the recommen dations in favour of the petitioners, which were made in the year 1998 were with out any basis whatsoever. Admittedly there is no advertisement and selection tow ards making such recommendation and that the recommendations were made on pick a nd choose basis. That being the position, this Court cannot issue any direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners. In the impugned order dated 13.12.2004, the PCCF, Assam has elaborately recorded the findings on the basis of facts involved in the case. Needless to say that i n any public employment the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India will have to be followed. In the instant case, the same was clearly violat ed by making the recommendations without there being any selection and empanelme nt. If any appointment was made on such recommendations, the same were illegal a nd the petitioners cannot base their claim on such illegal appointments. Another aspect of the matter is that the impugned order is dated 13.12.2004, but the instant writ petition was filed on 19.2.2007 without explaining the delay i n filing the writ petition. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain u s in view of the finding on merit of the case recorded above. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners and accordingly it is dismissed. Without, however, no order as to costs.