WP(C) 3945/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. P . Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. According to the petitioners, they are selected candidates for appointme nt as Supervisor, Statistical Assistant, LDC-cum-Typist and against the grade-IV vacancies, for which a selection was conducted in the year 2005. Pursuant to th e said selection, certain selected candidates had been appointed but when the pe titioners were not appointed, they along with some others had filed writ petitio ns being WP(C) Nos. 5434/2006, 5436/2006, 5435/2006, 6154/2006 and 6457/2006. Du ring the pendency of the writ petitions, when the notification dated 17.1.2009 i nviting applications for the post of Supervisor, Statistical Assistant, LDA-cum- Typist and Grade-IV on contractual basis was issued, the petitioners have filed MC Nos. 180/2009, 181/2009, 182/2009, 183/2009 and 184/2009, making a grievance against the said notification. All the Misc. Applications have been dismissed by order dated 9.3.2009. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th at the select list was prepared in 2005 got exhausted with the appointment of th e notified and cleared vacancies and that the select list cannot be operated ind efinitely till such time the entire select list is exhausted. Thus, in a nutshel l, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioners, although, were inclu ded in the select list but could not be appointed as they did not come within th e zone of consideration, taking into account the number of vacancies, in each ca tegory of posts. Apart from the above, the aforementioned writ petitions about which the petitioners have made a mention in the writ petition, have been disposed of by t his Court vide order dated 14.12.2010 providing for making individual representa tion, if the grievance still exists. Now, by filling MC No. 3171/2010, the petitioners have again put to chal lenge another advertisement dated 21.9.2010 issued by the Social Welfare Departm ent for the aforementioned categories of posts. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioners is that since they were selected in 2005, they should be conside red for appointment, both against existing and future vacancies. Needless to say that a select list gets exhausted either by making appointment against the avai lable vacancies or on expiry of one year. In the instant case, the respondents h ave stated about expiry of the select list on both counts i.e. appointment of th e candidates against available vacancies and expiry of one year. It is the speci fic case of the respondents that the select list cannot be extended beyond one y ear. For all the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitione rs and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear t heir own costs.