WP(C) 173/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI After having successfully completed two year Diploma Course in Pharmacy (in short, ’D. Pharma’), the petitioners got themselves registered with the Empl oyment Exchange, at Tezpur, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. In the year 199 9, there were nine posts of pharmacist lying vacant in the district of Sonitpur. In the month of January, 1999, Joint Director of Health Services, Government o f Assam, Sonitpur, decided to fill up the said vacant posts and started the proc ess of selection. The names of the petitioners were forwarded by the local Empl oyment Exchange to the Joint Director of Health Services, Sonitpur, and the peti tioners were accordingly called for interview along with other candidates. The petitioners appeared in the interview on 15.03.1999. Following the interview, t he petitioners were issued appointment letters by the Joint Director of Health S ervices, Sonitpur, and the petitioners joined their respective posts. On 06.08. 1999, the Joint Director of Health Services, Assam, Sonitpur, called the petitio ners and some others and told them that though they had been appointed after fol lowing due procedure, their appointments were required to be cancelled, because there was a ban imposed by the Government on all appointments and, on 06.08.1999 itself, the Joint Director of Health Services, Assam, Sonitpur, handed over to the petitioners a letter, dated 06.08.1999, cancelling the petitioners’ appointm ents. However, according to the petitioners, the Joint Director of Health Servi ces, Assam, Sonitpur, told them that they would be reinstated in their posts as soon as the ban was lifted. On being released from their respective posts, the petitioners continued to make representations to the Join Joint Director of Health Services, Assam, Sonitpur, and also to the Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, and, in cours e of time, even when, according to the petitioners, the ban was lifted by the St ate Government, the petitioners were not reinstated, as had been assured by the Joint Director of Health Services, Assam, Sonitpur, though, in some of the distr icts, similarly situated persons have been reinstated. On 03.01.2006, when the Government issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts of Pharmacist, the petitioners filed this writ petitio n, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, with the help of thi s writ petition, issuance of an order setting aside and quashing the order, date d 06.08.1999, whereby the petitioners’ appointments were cancelled, and also the impugned advertisement, dated 03.01.2006, with further prayer for issuing direc tions to the respondents to fill up the vacant posts of Pharmacists by reinstati ng the petitioners. Heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, and M r. B. Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted is t hat it is not in dispute that during the period, when the petitioners underwent the said selection process, and, on being selected, they were appointed as Pharm acist by the Joint Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, Sonitpur, t here was a ban imposed on all appointments by the Government. In the face of su ch a ban having been imposed, the petitioners could not have been legally appoin ted. No wonder, therefore, that when the petitioners’ appointments were cancell ed on 06.08.1999, they did not agitate their grievances by filing any writ petit ion. The petitioners’ contention, that the Joint Director of Health Services, G overnment of Assam, Sonitpur, had assured that they would be reinstated as soon as the ban was lifted, cannot vest, in the petitioners, any right to be reinstat ed inasmuch as their appointments, having been made during the period of ban, as indicated hereinbefore, were illegal, for, during the period of such a ban bein g in force, the Joint Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, Sonitpur , had no authority to make the appointments. Otherwise also, the appointments t o the said posts could not have been made without the approval of the Director o f Health Services, Government of Assam, and, it is an admitted fact that no such approval had been obtained by the Joint Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, Sonitpur. By various letters, issued in the year 2001, the Director of Health Serv ices, Government of Assam, requested the Government to allow him to fill up the vacant posts in various districts, including the said nine posts, which were lyi ng vacant in the district of Sonitpur. By their letter, dated 06.01.2003, the S tate Level Empowered Committee, constituted by the Government, gave clearance fo r filling up the vacant posts of Pharmacist in the district of Sonitpur. Howeve r, as the ban continued to remain in force, which had been imposed by the Govern ment, the Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, wrote a letter, on 1 2.09.2003, to the State Government, requesting to lift the said ban. Eventually , on 03.01.2006, the advertisement aforementioned, inviting applications to fill up the posts, was issued and the petitioners impugned the same in this writ pet ition. The advertisement indicates that the applications have been invited for the posts, which are lying vacant in the district of Sonitpur too. There being no interim order, passed in this writ petition, restraining the Government from making appointments to the said posts, the posts have already been filled up. From the narration of above facts, what clearly emerges is that the appo intment of the petitioners by the Joint Director of Health Services, Government of Assam, Sonitpur, was wholly illegal inasmuch as there was, during the period of making the said appointments, complete ban on all appointments to be made by the Government and, in such circumstances, no appointment of the nature, as had been made in the present case, could have been made by the Joint Director of Hea lth Services, Government of Assam, Sonitpur. The advertisement, which has come to be the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition, was issued on 03.01 .2006, i.e., after the State Level Empowered Committee gave its consent to fill up the posts and the said ban, on all appointments imposed by the Government, wa s lifted. As the petitioners’ earlier appointments were illegal, they had no ri ght to demand their reinstatement on the lifting of the said ban, in the circums tances, as indicated hereinbefore. The petitioners having not participated in t he selection process, which came to be held following the advertisement, dated 0 3.01.2006, no direction can, now, be issued for appointment of the petitioners a gainst the posts, which were to be filled up and have been filled up subsequent to the advertisement, dated 03.01.2006. It has been contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that in other distr icts, the appointments of the similarly situated persons have been continued. W hen the petitioners’ appointments, in the circumstances as mentioned above, were not legal, the petitioners cannot demand that they should be reinstated in serv ice, particularly, when they never challenged the order cancelling their appoint ment, nor did they participate in the selection process, when the same was initi ated by the advertisement, dated 03.01.2006. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to cost.