WP(C) 308/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners . Also heard Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing fo r the State respondents 1 & 2. Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel for th e B.T.C. appears for respondents 3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions seek direction for th eir appointment on the basis of purported select list dated 13.10.2003 in the po sts of Draftsman/LDA/Forester-Grade-I under the Western Assam Forest Zone. The p etitioners claim that as their names appeared in the select list, they have a r ight to be appointed to the posts in question. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court through WP(C) 10318/2003 and W P(C) 9808/2003 seeking direction for their appointment on the basis of the selec t list dated 13.10.2003. Another group filed a writ petition i.e. WP(C) 9241/200 3 challenging the validity of the select list. 3. By the common judgment and order dated 9.8.2005, this Court disp osed of all the 3 writ petitions concluding that the list where the names of the petitioners were reflected, is not the select list for appointment. The final s elect list is to be prepared centrally after on the basis of the merit of the ca ndidates in the decentralized selection process in different zones. Accordingly the Court directed for preparation of a consolidated select list. The judgment a nd order of the learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench on 3.10. 2005, when it dismissed the Writ Appeal No. 567/2005. 4. As the Government did not prepare the effective select list and instead issued an advertisement on 2.2.2008 inviting application for different p osts such as Forester Grade-I, Forest Guards, LDA, Draftsman etc., some of the a spirants for appointment from the Western Assam Zone challenged the advertisemen t by filing writ petitions including WP(C) 702/2008. This Court by judgment and order dated 28.8.2008 disposed of the said writ petitions by differentiating the claim for appointment made by the aspirants to Grade-IV vacancies, by holding that decentralized selection and appointment in Grade-IV posts is permissible, as appointment to such vacancies is usually made through a decentralized process instead of a Statewise recruitment. Accordingly the Court directed that 18 Grad e-IV posts of Forest Guards for the Western Assam Zone be filled up on the basis of the merit list prepared for the said zone. This Court on perusal of the Gove rnment records came to the conclusion that the selection process which was initi ated in 1998 was subsequently abandoned in the year 1999. In so far as the post( s) of Forester Grade-I is concerned, the Court found that no vacancies in the sa id post was available. 5. The writ petitioner in WP(C) 326/2009 Mizing Khungur Mushahary w as enlisted for the post of Draftsman under the Western Assam Zone but it is ref lected in the note appended to the list dated 13.10.2003 that no written test wa s held for selecting Draftsman. Therefore it is clear that the list was not prep ared on merit of the candidates. The writ petitioners Dulal Ch. Roy and Sujata B asumatary’s names appeared amongst the list of candidates for LDA under the West ern Assam Zone. In the WP(C) 308/2009 the names of the writ petitioners appear a mongst the candidates, who were enlisted for the post(s) of Forester Grade-I und er the Western Assam Zone. But as was already recorded by the Court in the earlier proceedi ng, division wise merit lists were required to be finalized into a consolidated select list for the entire State for filling up the vacancies in all the 6 Fores t Divisions. But the consolidated select list was never prepared and the selecti on process initiated in the year 1998 was abandoned in 1999. 6. It is averred by the respondents that in the year 1998, selectio n process to various vacancies in the Forest Department was started separately i n the different Forest Zones and Zonal Selection Committee were constituted for evaluating the candidate’s merits. Thereafter the merit list prepared by each zo ne was required to be forwarded to the Chairman, Central Recruitment Committee, for preparation of the final select list. But the process of selection was aband oned midway in the year 1999 due to ban on recruitment placed by the State on 22 .12.1999 and accordingly the Central Committee could not prepare the final selec t list, although selection exercise was carried out in various zones. 7. Since no select list was prepared in pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in the year 1998, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the petitioners have any enforceable legal right for a direction for their appo intment as the recruitment process envisaged that a consolidated select list sha ll be prepared by the Central Committee, after comparing the merits of the candi dates determined by the Zonal Committees. Therefore it cannot be said that merel y because the names of the petitioners appear in the merit list of the Western A ssam Zone, they have a right to appointment as appointments were to be made cent rally to all the vacancies in the State. 8. That apart, this Court while rendering judgment on 4.11.1998 has clearly recorded that a decentralized selection is permissible only for Grade-I V vacancies. The logical consequences of the said finding of the Court is that t he Grade-III vacancies with which the present writ petitioners are concerned, sh ould be filled up on the basis of a consolidated select list for the entire Stat e. Since such consolidated select list was never prepared because of the ban on recruitment in the interregnum, I am of the considered opinion that the petition ers does not have a legal right to claim appointment, on the basis of their part icipation and merit position in the Zonal List. 9. The Court must not also overlook the fact that this recruitment process was initiated in the year 1998 and in my view it would hardly be right t o allow any appointment to be made on the basis of an abandoned process 12 years after particularly when, no select list was ever prepared. It is declared accor dingly. 10. As the writ petitioners claim for appointment is rejected, the S tate is at liberty to fill up the vacancies through a regular process of recruit ment. However considering that the petitioners have been agitating their claim f or appointment for all these years, if they wish to apply in a regular recruitme nt process, the State Authorities may consider relaxation of their age to the pe rmissible limit as per law, so that their candidature may also be considered. 11. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions stand dispos ed of without any order on cost.