WP(C) 1526/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI All the cases were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common order. By an advertisement issued in the newspapers on 30.7.2005, 32 posts of Assistant Enforcement Inspectors and 32 posts of Enforcement Checkers were advertised. Th e advertisement dated 30.7.2005 was a sequel to certain Court orders passed in p roceedings challenging the earlier attempts of the department to select candidat es for the posts in question on the basis of earlier advertisements issued. The details of the said events, not being very relevant to the present adjudication, would not be required to be noticed save and except that on the date of issuanc e of the advertisement dated 30.7.2005 the 64 posts in question were manned by ad hoc employees. Against the advertisement dated 30.7.2005 an association representing many aspir ants for the posts in question had instituted a writ proceeding before this Cour t registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6602/2005. A similar challenge was made by the ad hoc employees holding the posts in another proceeding registered and num bered as WP(C) No.6839/2005. Interim orders were passed in the aforesaid two wri t proceedings on 23.9.2005 permitting the selections to be held but with the sti pulation that the select list will not be published without leave of the Court. Another writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C) No.7175/2005 was filed by certain individuals challenging the advertisement dated 30.7.2005 and the selec tion process undertaken pursuant thereto. Several intervention applications were filed in the proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No.6839 of 2005. All t he aforesaid three writ petitions including another writ petition registered and numbered as WP(C) No.5880 of 2005, which had virtually become infructuous, were answered by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 21 .6.2006 by interfering with the selections held. Against the order dated 21.6.2006 three writ appeals i.e. Writ Appeal Nos.249 an d 278 of 2006 and Writ Appeal No.57 of 2007 were filed. Writ Appeal Nos.249/200 6 and 278/2006 were filed by two individual interveners in WP(C) No.6839/2005 wh ereas Writ Appeal No.57 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.6839/20 05 challenging certain observations contained in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.6.2006. Though the order dated 21.6.2006 of the learned Single Judge was a common order passed in three writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No.6602/2005, 6839/2005 and 7175/2005, no appeal against the judgment rendered in WP(C) Nos.6602/2005 and 7175/2005 wa s filed. In the writ appeals filed in connection with the judgment and order in WP(C) No.6839/2005, the petitioners in the other connected writ petitions i.e. W P(C) Nos.6602/2005 and 7175/2005 were not made parties. In the aforesaid circums tances, by order dated 28.12.2007 the Writ Appeal Nos.249/2006, 278/2006 and 57/ 2007 were disposed of by the Division Bench by interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.6.2006 and by permitting the department to publis h the select list and to make appointments therefrom. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.12.2007 was sought to be appealed ag ainst by the parties in WP(C) No.6839/2005 who had instituted Special Leave Peti tion Nos.1272 to 1274/2008 before the Apex Court. The SLPs in question were dism issed by order dated 28.1.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners in WP(C) No.7175/200 5 instituted another set of Special Leave Petitions bearing Nos.4488 to 4490 of 2008. As it appears the primary contention in the aforesaid Special Leave Petiti ons is that the directions of the Division Bench dated 28.12.2007 though had aff ected the petitioners in WP(C) No.7175/2005, yet the said directions were issued without hearing them. On the said SLPs notice was issued as well as a notice on the prayer for interim relief by the Apex Court on 4.4.2008. It is against the aforesaid backdrop that the present writ petitions seeking a d irection from this Court for publication of the select list and consequential ap pointments on the one hand as well as for interference of the Court with the sai d process will have to be considered by the Court. What would also be significant to be taken note of at this stage is that the off icial respondents in the writ petitions had in the meantime i.e. i.e. on 7.4.200 8 published the select list of successful candidates which have been specificall y assailed in some of the writ petitions filed. The core issue that would require the decision of the Court in the writ petition s, at this stage, is whether in view of the facts stated above the order dated 2 8.12.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court Writ Appeal Nos.249/2006, 2 78/2006 and 57/2007 can be understood to have attained finality in law so as to authorize the official respondents to publish/cause publication of the select li st and to contemplate appointments on that basis. Not much effort is required to answer the aforesaid question in the negative inasmuch as SLP Nos.4488 to 4490 of 2008 are presently pending before the Apex Court on the same issue in which S LPs notice has been issued. In such a situation publication of the select list d ated 7.4.2008 and further action on that basis cannot but be held by the Court t o be somewhat premature. Mere absence of any interim restraint by the Apex Court while entertaining SLP Nos.4488 to 4490 of 2008, a stand which has been taken b y the learned departmental counsel in the course of hearing, cannot obliterate t he fact that the Apex Court is in sesin of the legality and validity of the judg ment and order dated 28.12.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Wr it Appeal Nos.249/2006, 278/2006 and 57/2007. Even if there is no interim restra int of the Apex Court in the matter, the respondent department should not be all owed to take further steps or further consequential action which may have the ef fect of rendering the proceedings before the Apex Court futile. In any case the respondents should not be permitted to add avoidable dimensions to the issue by creating rights which as on date do not exist. In such circumstances the Court is of the view that all these writ petitions sho uld be disposed of by directing the respondent department to refrain from taking any further action on the basis of the select list dated 7.4.2008 and by furthe r directing that such consequential action will now be permissible only in the l ight of such orders that the Apex Court may pass in SLP Nos.4488 to 4490 of 2008 . The writ petitioners who have challenged the select list and the impending con sequential appointment will also be at liberty to approach this Court once again in the event any such necessity arises. All the writ petitions as well as Contempt Case No.155 of 2008 shall stand close d and disposed of in the above terms.