WA 262/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.SARMA Amitava Roy, J Heard Mr AM Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr B Banerjee, learned counsel for the private respondent and Mr C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission (for short, hereinafter referr ed to as ’the Commission’). 2. The judgment and order dated 22.5.2007 rendered in a batch of w rit petitions being WP(C) Nos. 3737/2004, 3738/2004 and 5744/2005 is under chall enge in the instant appeal. The determination by the learned Single Judge by the aforementioned decision vis-à-vis WP(C) Nos. 3738/2004 and 5744/2005 only conce rns us. 3. The facts in bare essentials necessary for the disposal of the i nstant appeal are that the appellant herein was appointed as a part time Lecture r in Sanskrit in the State College of Music, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter re ferred to as ’the College’) at a fixed pay of Rs. 350/- per month against a sanc tioned post for a term upto 28.2.94 vide order of the even date of the Director of Cultural Affairs, Guwahati. By a Notification dated 4.1.2001 issued by the Co mmissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department she wa s appointed in the same capacity under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Servi ce Commission (Limitation & Function) Regulation, 1951 (for short, hereinafter r eferred to as ’the Regulation’) in the pay scale of Rs. 4300/- to Rs. 11,025/- f or a period of four months or till the post was filled up by direct recruitment by the Commission. The Notification clearly mentioned, amongst others, that the appointment was ad-hoc and purely temporary. While the matter stood at that and the appellant was continuing in the above capacity an advertisement was issued i n the issue dated 26.6.2001 of the local daily Assam Tribune soliciting candid ature for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit in the College. There is no wrangle a t the Bar that the post then held by the appellant was the one involved in the s election process. The advertisement vis-à-vis the said post, amongst others, pre scribed the academic qualification to be a Post Graduate Degree in the concerned subject from any recognized University. It mentioned inter alia that experience would be preferable. The appellant, the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 6 participated in the process and in the select list that was eventually publish ed on 29.5.2002 their inter-se position in order of merit was as hereunder: Position Sl. No. Name 1 13 Smti Nibedita Goswami (Respondent No.5) 2 10 Smti Indrani Deka 3 5 Smti Jury Bhattacharyya (Appellant/ writ petitio ner) ________________________________________________________ According to the appellant, this select list had not been publis hed for the information of all concerned and her service under Regulation 3(f) o f the Regulation having meanwhile been terminated by the Notification dated 24.5 .2004 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department, she a pproached this Court in WP(C) No. 3738/2004 seeking its intervention. By the int erim order dated 1.6.2004 this Court stayed the operation of the aforementioned Notification and the interim restraint was extended subsequent thereto by the or der dated 8.6.2004. 4. The respondent No.5 herein filed two interim applications in the aforementioned writ petition, one seeking her impleadment (M.C. No. 1727/2005) and the other for alteration/ modification/ vacation of the interim orders dated 1.6.2004 and 8.6.2004 (M.C. No. 1712/2005). The respondent No.5, thereafter, wa s imleaded as prayed for. In the application for alteration/ modification/ vacat ion of the interim order this respondent inter alia mentioned about the select list dated 29.5.2002 and her appointment by a Notification of the same date as a Lecturer in Sanskrit in the College. She, however, complained that though in te rms thereof she had reported to join, she was not allowed to do so for reasons n ot fully divulged by the Principal of the institution. 5. The present appellant having come to learn about the select list and spurred by the 5th respondent’s claim for appointment on the basis thereof instituted WP(C) No. 5744/2005. Therein she questioned the action of the Commiss ion in extending the validity of the select list dated 29.5.2002 and the consequ ential appointment of the respondent No.5 on the basis thereof. In their individ ual affidavits the Commission as well as the respondent No.5 asserted in favour of the impugned steps taken as well as the appointment of the latter. According to the Commission in particular, a request having been made by the concerned Sta te authority for extension of the term of the select list it was accordingly don e as it had the power to do so. By the impugned judgment and order the learned S ingle Judge has sustained the plea of the Commission and logically that of the r espondent No.5. 6. Mr Buzarbaruah has persuasively argued that it being apparent on the face of the letter dated 20.10.2003 of the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Cultural Affairs Department addressed to the Chairman of the Commission t hat the validity of the select list dated 29.5.2002 had expired on 30.5.2003, ne ither the request for extension of the term thereof nor the approval to the said effect granted by the Commission is sustainable in law and that the learned Sin gle Judge having missed to address the above vital aspect of the controversy, th e impugned judgment and order needs interference in the interest of justice. Ref erring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. -vs- B iswanath Banerjee & Anr., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487 and in K. Thulaseedharan -vs- Ke rala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 190, the l earned counsel has emphasized that having regard to the concept of extension w hich pre-supposes the continued existence of the one state to be enlarged or ext ended, the impugned decision of the Commission is per se untenable in law and on facts. As admittedly the select list had expired on 30.5.2003, Mr Buzarbaruah h as argued that the Commission had no authority or power to extend the term there of even with retrospective effect. 7. While Mr C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission h as reiterated its pleaded stand, Mr Banerjee, learned counsel for the private re spondent has urged that as its (Commission) decision to extend the validity of t he select list as conveyed by its communication dated 18.11.2003 had not been ch allenged by the appellant at any point of time, she is estopped from pleading ot herwise. According to Mr Banerjee, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is valid and does not warrant any interference in the appeal. The learned counsel to buttress his argument has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors. -vs- Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 wherein thei r Lordships had observed vis-à-vis the status of a panel which is prescribed to remain valid for a year that once it lapses unless an appropriate order is issue d by the State no appointment can be made therefrom. 8. We have considered the pleadings on record and the documents ava ilable therewith in the context of the arguments advanced. The sequence of event s as recited hereinabove in a nutshell is not in dispute. That by the date on wh ich the State Government had made a request to the Commission to extend the vali dity of the select list, the same had already expired on 30.5.2003 is amply test ified by the aforementioned communication. It is, thus, an admitted fact that th e select list dated 29.5.2002 stood expired on 30.5.2003. The date of the letter dated 20.10.2003 attests the fact that the request for extension of the select list was made almost after a lapse of five months from the expiry thereof. The l etter dated 18.11.2003 of the Deputy Secretary of the Commission according appro val to the extension of the validity of the select list as requested by the Stat e Government is a clear pointer to the fact that the decision was taken on a dat e which is almost six months after the date of expiry of the select list. Notice ably, however, the extension was granted with effect from 29.5.2003. 9. The Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalui (supra) while dealing wi th the purport of the expression extension and renewal vis-à-vis the term lea se/tenancy as involved therein referred to the dictionary meaning of these word s. Alluding to the Black’s Law Dictionary their Lordships observed that the word extension means enlargement of the main body; addition of something smaller t han that to which it is attached; to lengthen or prolong. The Apex Court thus pr opounded that extension ordinary implies the continued existence of something to be extended. According to their Lordships, the distinction between ’extension ’ and ’renewal’ is chiefly that in case of renewal, a new lease is required, whi le in the case of extension the same lease continues in force during the additio nal period by the performance of the stipulated act. In K. Thulaseedharan (supra ) the Apex Court was confronted with a challenge against the refusal of the Kera la Public Service Commission to extend the validity of a list that has since exp ired. The fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, as is evident from the contextual facts therein, empowered the Co mmission to keep alive the lists which were normally due to expire during the sa id period to such periods as might be decided by it subject to a maximum period of three months or for such further periods but not exceeding one year in the ag gregate. Their Lordships with specific reference to the fifth proviso to the afo rementioned Rules refused to interfere with the decision of the jurisdictional H igh Court sustaining the decision of the Commission. 10. Having regard to the concept of extension as has been expounded by the Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalui (supra), we are of the considered opi nion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the State Governmen t had no authority in law to request for extension of the term of the select lis t dated 29.5.2002 after a lapse of five months from the date of expiry thereof. The decision of the Commission to accord approval to the extension, in our view, consequently cannot be sustained as well by the analogy of the aforementioned r easons. Our attention has not been drawn to any law or executive instructions ha ving the force thereof empowering the Commission to grant extension of the valid ity of a select list already expired with retrospective effect. It is trite on t his day to observe that having regard to the notion of extension as is acceptabl e and understood in the absence of any principle of law or otherwise, it per se pre-supposes existence of the state or condition of which an enlargement either in point of time or otherwise is sought to be effected by an order to that effec t. The same concept pervades, amongst others, service jurisprudence. The tenure of service once over cannot be extended and the only arrangement thereafter feas ible is by way of re-employment. In other words, the concept of extension is not available vis-à-vis anything that had ceased to exist. 11. In the instant case, admittedly the term of the select list had expired on 30.5.2003. No step noticeably had been taken before the request was m ade by the State Government to keep it alive. In this view of the matter, the ch allenge laid by the appellant is of considerable substance. The conclusion of th e learned Single Judge to the contrary, therefore, cannot be sustained. The impu gned judgment and order so far as it relates to the parties herein, accordingly, is interfered with. 12. The appeal is allowed. The State respondents are left with the l iberty to take necessary steps hereafter in accordance with law.