WA 279/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitione r-appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 29. 4.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which W.P.(C) No.59(SH) of 2008 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed may be enumerated at the outset. 3. In the year 1994, on the basis of a selection conducted by the M anaging Committee of the Bhaitbari Higher Secondary School, the appellant/writ p etitioner was selected for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in the A rts Stream. He was placed at Serial No.1 of the merit/select list. As appointmen t was not forthcoming, a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.307 (SH)/2004 was filed b y the appellant which was disposed of by this Court on 8.2.2006. A reading of th e aforesaid order indicates that the learned Judge hearing W.P.(C) No.307(SH) of 2004, after an elaborate consideration of the facts of the case and the provisi ons of the Rules applicable, came to the conclusion that the selection having be en conducted by the Managing Committee of the School was good for appointment fo r a period not exceeding three months in accordance with the later part of the p rovision contained under Rule 4(3) of the Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965 which was adopted by the State of Meghalaya. In par a-12 of the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge also took the view that the appointment of the 7th respondent in the present case in the post of Scienc e Teacher, if approved by the Inspector of Schools, would be for a period of thr ee months only. 4. Thereafter, it appears that two tenures of 89 days were afforded to the petitioner which expired in the year 2006 itself i.e. on 25.12.2006. The writ petitioner instituted another proceeding before this court being W.P.(C) N o.175(SH) of 2007 seeking a direction for regular appointment on the basis of th e selection held. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.7.2007 by directi ng consideration of the appellant-writ petitioner’s representation which was pen ding. 5. In the meantime, an advertisement dated 18.3.2008 having been is sued advertising the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts Stream) in the School, the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen i.e. W.P.(C) No.59 (SH) of 20 08, was instituted seeking the following relief(s) :- It is therefore prayed that your Lordship be pleased to admit the petition and issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the fresh adver tisement for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) as per advertis ement, date 18.03.2008 should not be cancelled and suspended for operation. And after hearing the parties your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the operation of the said advertisement dated 18.03.2008. Further, be pleased to give directi on to the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner as per selection dated 26.0 8.2004 and subsequent recommendation as per Memo No.CG.I.CC/7/2004/78, Dated 09. 01.2007 and also to make rule absolute and pass such other Order/Direction direc ting the Respondent No.1 to 5 to appoint the Petitioner on regular basis for the Post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) in Bhaitbari Higher Secondary School, as per t he result of the Selection Committee as done for the post of Assistant Teacher ( Science) for the respondent No.7. And/or pass such other Order/ Direction as you r Lordships may deem fit and proper for equity justice and fair play . 6. Under the provisions of Rule 4(3), selection for appointment of Assistant Teacher is required to be conducted either by the Director of Public I nstruction or by the Board of Secondary Education and it is from the list of sel ected candidates prepared by the Director that the Managing Committee is require d to make the appointments with prior approval of the Inspector of Schools. Rule 4(3) also contemplates that the select list prepared shall be valid for a perio d of one year. The last part of Rule 4(3), however, provides that the Managing C ommittee will have the power to fill up the vacancies from outside the list for a period of three months subject to approval of the Inspector of Schools. In the present case, admittedly, the select list was prepared by the Managing Committe e of the School and appointments therefrom, if at all, would be relatable to the period of three months contemplated by the last part of Rule 4(3). The petition er had already been given two tenures of 89 days each. 7. The select list prepared by the Managing Committee of the school cannot be the basis for regular appointment, a finding that has already been re corded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 8.2.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.307 of 2007. The said question, therefore, would not be open for re-agitatio n in the present appeal. That apart, the select list prepared in the year 2004, even if hypothetically assumed to be valid for regular appointment, cannot be th e basis for appointment as on date in view of the efflux of time and the life of the select list, as contemplated by the Rules. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of host ile discrimination on the ground that the Respondent No.7, who was appointed in the post of Science Teacher on the basis of the same selection held by the Manag ing Committee, is continuing till date. Even if the said fact is correct, the sa me cannot be a valid basis for the Court to issue a similar direction in the cas e of the petitioner particularly when it has already been held in the present or der that the select list prepared by the Managing Committee cannot serve as a ba sis for regular appointment. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for admission. The writ appeal, therefore, is rejected by refusing ad mission.