WP(C) 4469/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also hea rd Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, who represents the State Respondents. 2. The ten petitioners, who are qualified to be appointed as Demons trators in the Department of Handloom and Textiles, are before this Court seekin g a direction for not making any appointment from the select list dated 27.3.200 1 and to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts for w hich the aforesaid select list dated 27.3.2001 was prepared. The aforesaid selec t list dated 27.3.2001 was under challenge in WP(C) No.5845/2001 and this Court vide judgment and order dated 27.2.2003 while disposing of the said writ petitio n directed the State to examine as to whether the select list dated 27.3.2001 wa s prepared in accordance with the provisions of law and to take a decision as to whether to act upon the said select list or not. In pursuance to the said direc tion, the Government considered the select list and by its order dated 18.6.2003 took a decision that the select list was prepared by following irregular proced ure and accordingly, the State took a decision not to act upon the said select l ist but to go for a fresh selection for recruitment to the posts of such Demonst rators. 3. Some of the persons, who are selected, being aggrieved, challeng ed the Government decision dated 18.6.2003 by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.275/2004 and this Court by judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 allowed the sa id writ petition and declared that the Government decision dated 18.6.2003 is no t sustainable. Accordingly, direction was issued to the State to proceed in the matter towards appointment of the candidates from the select list. 4. Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State counsel submits that although the se lection process was started with issuing advertisement for 31 posts of Demonstra tors, eventually, the Government considering the larger vacancy position, filled up as many as 57 posts and only 4/5 posts remains to be filled up. 5. Considering the developments noticed above and the fact that the select list dated 27.3.2001 has already been acted upon by the Government on th e strength of the judgment and order dated 14.6.2004 passed in WP(C) No.275/2004 , no direction as sought in the present writ petition for not making appointment from the select list dated 27.3.2001 can be issued and accordingly, the prayer made by the writ petitioners cannot be allowed. Under the circumstances, the wri t petition stands dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that if the respondents wish to fill u p the vacant posts of Demonstrators in future, such filling up should only be do ne after following the due process of law in terms of the norms in force.