WP(C) 3266/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Maleque, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Also heard Mr. Das, learned standing counsel BTC appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 6. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who were placed at Sl. Nos.85 and 114, respe ctively, in the merit list prepared and published by the Conservator of Forests (H.Q.), Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Assam, by the pres ent petition, have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoi nt them against the posts of Forest Guard or any Grade-III posts lying under the Bodoland Territorial Council area pursuant to their position in the aforesaid s elect list dated 13.10.2003. According to the petitioners, though such list was prepared and publishe d on 13.10.2003 and they were placed at Sl. Nos.85 and 114, they have not been a ppointed as Forest Guard despite upholding the validity of the said list vide ju dgment and order dated 09.08.2005 passed in WP(C) No.9808/2003, where they were also the petitioners as well as the judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed i n WP(C) No.702/2008 and batch, whereby and whereunder the direction was issued t o fill up 18 posts of Forest Guards from out of the merit list dated 13.10.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that necessa ry directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to appoint them as For est Guard pursuant to the merit list published on 13.10.2003. The learned State counsel as well as the learned standing counsel BTC, o n the other hand, referring to the judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 passed in WP(C) No.702/2008 and batch, have submitted that a Single Bench of this Court h ad directed the respondent authorities to fill up only 18 posts of Forest Guard from out of the candidates selected vide select list dated 13.10.2003 and the re st of the posts included in the subsequent advertisement dated 02.02.2008 in acc ordance with law. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioners’ position in the said merit list being 85 and 114, they cannot claim appointment pursuant to their selection vide select list dated 13.10.2003 when all the 18 po sts of Forest Guards are filled up by candidates in accordance with their positi on in the merit list. The process for selection of candidates to fill up certain posts of Fore st Guard was initiated in the year 1999, which culminated in publication of the select list, in order of merit, on 13.10.2003. The names of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 appeared at Sl. Nos.85 and 114, respectively, in the said list. The validity of the said list was initially put to challenge in WP(C) No .9241/2003 by some candidates, who were not selected. Another writ petition bein g WP(C) No.9808/2003 was also filed by the present petitioners claiming appointm ent on the basis of the selection made and the aforesaid select list dated 13.10 .2003. Another writ petition being WP(C) No.10318/2003 was also filed by certain other candidates for directing the respondent authorities to act upon the afore said select list. All these three writ petitions were taken up together and a Si ngle Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 09.08.2005 disposed of th e said writ petitions by dismissing the WP(C) No.9241/2003, wherein the validity of the select list was put to challenge and allowing the other two writ petitio ns with a further direction that the respondent authorities may now act upon the select list dated 13.10.2003 provided the same was in force. The said judgment was unsuccessfully challenged in WA No.567/2005 by the petitioners in WP(C) No.9 241/2003. The authority, however, without giving effect to the select list dated 1 3.10.2003 issued another advertisement dated 02.02.2008 for recruitment, amongst others to the post of Forest Guard, which was put to challenge in WP(C) No.702/ 2008 and three other writ petitions. Those writ petitions were disposed of vide common judgment and order dated 28.08.2008 interfering with the advertisement da ted 02.02.2008 and directing that 18 posts of Forest Guards are to be filled up from the select list dated 13.10.2003 and the rest of the posts included in the advertisement dated 02.02.2008 may be filled up in accordance with law. Paragrap hs 12 and 13 of the said judgment and order are reproduced below:- 12. For the aforesaid reasons the Court is of the view that the writ petitio ns must be allowed and the advertisement dated 2.2.2008 should be interfered wit h. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Insofar as the consequential directions for operation of the select list s dated 13.10.2003 is concerned, the Court has noticed from the original records placed before it that the selection process though initiated was subsequently a bandoned insofar as the posts of Forester Grade-I is concerned, as no vacancies in the said posts were available. That apart, it has also come to the notice of the Court that the recruitment process in the Western Zone was against 18 posts of Forest Guard. Accordingly, the State is directed to operate the select list d ated 13.10.2003 prepared for Forest Guards to the extent of 18 posts only. The r est of the posts included in the advertisement dated 2.2.2008 may now be filled up by the State in accordance with law. As noticed above, the petitioners’ position in the select list dated 13. 10.2003 published on the basis of the merit, was at Sl. Nos.85 and 114. In the p resent petition they are not claiming that they should have been appointed again st those 18 posts because of the reservation policy, though they are placed at S l. Nos.85 and 114. Since the direction was to fill up 18 posts from out of the s elect list dated 13.10.2003, obviously even by following the reservation policy, the petitioners, in view of their position in the merit list, cannot be appoint ed. That being the position, I do no find any merit in the petition and henc e it is dismissed.