WP(C) 7098/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. RP Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms . M. Gogoi, learned standing counsel appearing for Education Deptt. and Mr. SS G oswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. These two cases relate to claim for appointment made by the two writ petitioners for the post of Lecturers in Chemistry, pursuant to a selection made on 17.5.02 by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC). 3. An advertisement dt. 17.5.01 was issued inviting applications fo r appointment, inter alia, to 13 posts of Lecturer in Chemistry in different Gov t. Colleges and Institutions. The two petitioners gave their applications in res ponse to the said advertisement dt. 17.5.01 and as they possessed the requisite UGC prescribed qualifications including NET qualification, they were shortlisted in the select list published by the APSC on 17.5.02. In the said select list, t he merit position of writ petitioner Nabajyoti Deka is at serial No.20 whereas t he merit position of writ petitioner Raghab Parajuli is at serial No.12. 4. It appears that for the 13 advertised posts the Govt. had initia lly issued appointment orders for the post of Lecturers in Chemistry, to 11 pers ons by order dt. 30.8.03 issued by the Secretary of Higher Education, Govt. of A ssam. But out of the 11 (eleven) persons who were offered appointment, only 5 (f ive) persons joined in the posts of Lecturer in Chemistry in different Instituti ons. Thereafter by appointment order dt. 25.6.04, 4 (four) more persons were off ered appointment but only 2(two) persons accepted the offer and joined in the po sts of Lecturer in Chemistry. Thus, altogether 7(seven) persons joined as Lecturer in Chemistr y, although 13 posts were advertised in the advertisement dt. 17.5.01 and accord ingly it is submitted that 8 posts of Lecturer in Chemistry are presently lying vacant. 5. Mr. RP Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitione rs contended that as the writ petitioners possessed the requisite qualification and were also selected for appointment by the APSC in the posts of Lecturer in C hemistry and since 8 of the advertised vacancies available, a direction should b e issued for consideration of the appointment of the petitioners against such va cant posts. 6. Although appointment of Jhutika Goswami (respondent No. 4) and N arayan Bordoloi (respondent No.5) is under challenge in the writ petition, the l earned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioners, however, is not pressing the challenge made against the appointment of respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. SS Goswami, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 i s accordingly not required to defend his appointment. However, Mr. Goswami submi ts that the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as a Lecturer of Science and not exclusively as a Lecturer in Chemistry and his appointment does not have any re lation with the advertisement issued and the selection made by the APSC. 7. Mr. RP Sarma, learned senior counsel has referred to a decision rendered by this Court on 2.5.06 in WP(C) No. 6038/04 and submits that similar r elief, as was granted to the petitioners in that case, should also be ordered in respect of the present two petitioners. 8. The learned counsel has further contended that since the Govt. has already extended the validity of the select list to 1.8.06 by notification d t. 30.6.06, in the absence of any acceptable justification for not filling up th e vacant posts in question, the case of the writ petitioners, by virtue of their selection, should be considered for appointment in the posts of Lecturer in Che mistry. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned senior counse l has referred to the Supreme Court decision reported in 2001 (4) SCC 289 (Vijay Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chairman, School Service Commission and others) whe rein the Supreme Court has directed appointment of the selected candidates again st OBC category by directing extension of the select list for OBC category selec tees. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision reported in 2000 (1) SCC 600 (A.P. Aggarwal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another) in whic h case also the Supreme Court, on the basis of selection made, had ordered appoi ntment of the petitioners. 9. Ms. M. Gogoi, the learned standing counsel, on the other hand, h as contended that the select list in the instant case, which although stood exte nded to 8.1.06, has already expired and there cannot be any direction for appoin tment of the selectees on the basis of the select list notified on 17.5.02. The learned counsel has further contended that after the appoint ment orders have been issued the Govt. has no proposal at present for filling up the existing vacancies and there may not be any direction for such appointment by the Court. 10. It is seen from the facts noticed above that as many as 13 posts of Lecturer in Chemistry in different Colleges/Institutions were advertised and for the said 13 posts, a select list consisting of 34 persons were prepared by the APSC. From the said select list, the Govt. by appointment orders dt. 3 0.8.03 and 25.6.04 has offered appointment to 11 (eleven) and 4(four) persons re spectively. But the appointment offers were accepted only by 7(seven) persons w ho have since joined as Lecturer in Chemistry in different Colleges/Institutions . Thus there appears to be at least 8 (eight) vacancies which although were adve rtised, have not been filled up because the appointees have chosen not to accept the offer of appointment. 11. It is undoubtedly true that there cannot be any legally enforcea ble right to a selectee to get an appointment. Despite selection, the appointing authority may choose not to offer appointment to a selectee even if vacancies a re available. 12. However, in matters of appointment the State would be expected t o adopt a fair procedure and may decline to make appointment to the vacant posts only for good and sufficient reasons having reasonable justification in the exi gency of the administration. Although the select list in the instant case is extended uptill 1.8.06, the petitioners have approached this Court within the validity period of the select list and expiry of the validity of the select list, may not by itsel f, be a justification for refusing the appointment to the writ petitioners, prov ided of course, the Govt. does not have acceptable justification for not filling up the vacant posts. 13. The petitioners in the two cases before this Court has secured p osition No. 12 and 20 respectively in order of merit in the select list publish ed by the APSC and baring those, whose names appears above the writ petitioners in the select list, the writ petitioners would naturally have aright of appointm ent, on the basis of their selection made by the APSC. 14. Nothing is available on record to indicate the reason for refusa l by the Govt. to act on the select list to fill up the available vacancies and accordingly it is difficult for this Court to take a view that there are legally justifiable reasons for not giving appointment to the persons whose names appea r in the select list. 15. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that these two writ petitions should be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider t he cases of the two writ petitioners whose names appear in the select list of 3 4 persons prepared by the APSC for filling up the posts of Lecturer in Chemistry . Upon such consideration, if the Govt. has no justifiable reason for not fillin g up the vacant posts, the petitioners be considered for such appointment agains t the existing vacant posts of Lecturer in Chemistry. Such consideration should be made by the respondent authorities at an early date and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy o f this order passed by this Court. To enable consideration by the Govt, the writ petitioners are directed to make a vailable a certified copy of this Court’s order along with other relevant papers to the respondent authorities to take a decision in terms of the direction pass ed by this Court. 16. The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the direction giv en above.