WA 236/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appel lant. The respondents (writ petitioners) are represented by Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel. 2. In pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.10.1994, the writ peti tioners offered their candidature to serve the agricultural development in the r ural areas and were aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.2004 of the Government, wh ereby approval was refused to the proposal for sending the writ petitioners for Pre Service Training, for being posted as Village Level Extension Workers (herei nafter referred to as VLEW ). They challenged the refusal through WP(C) 6608/20 04 by claiming that they are entitled to be deputed for training in view of the Court’s direction in C.R. No. 2561/99 given on 30.8.2001 wherein the Court direc ted that if the writ petitioners were selected in accordance with the procedure, they should be deputed to undergo the training. 3. As the aforesaid order was not implemented, Contempt Petition i. e. COP(C) 407/2002 was filed, which was disposed of on 7.5.2003 leaving it open to the Director, Agriculture to comply with the earlier direction dated 30.8.200 1 passed in the writ proceeding. After the disposal of the contempt application, when Government’s approval was refused for deputing them for training, the refu sal decision was challenged by respondents by filing W.P(C) No. 6608/2004. 4. Since selection of the respondents/writ petitioners was not canc elled, the learned Single Judge held that because of the earlier Court’s orders the Government is under an obligation to accord approval for sending the writ pe titioners for training. On that basis, the Court held that the refusal order dat ed 30.6.2004 is not legally tenable. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed a nd after having set aside the refusal order, deputation of the respondents/writ petitioners for training was ordered to be made. The State being aggrieved has f iled the present Appeal. 5. It is pointed out by the learned Addl. Advocate General that in the advertisement of 20.11.1994, selection of only 200 candidates were notified and in 1996, a list of 393 candidates was empanelled by the State Level Selectio n Committee (SLSC) on the basis of the recommendation made by the District Level Selection Committees (DLSCs). Then Government’s approval as to how many from th e empanelled list are to be sent for training was sought by the Directorate of A griculture. Only for 300 of the 393 short listed candidates approval was accorde d by the Government by letter dated 14.3.1996. But subsequently a 2nd list, cont aining names of 174 more candidates including the leftover 93 empanelled in the earlier list was approved. But the second list of candidates was suspended by th e Government on 16.6.1996. 6. Those including the present writ petitioners wanting the 2nd lis t to be made operational approached the Court and those writ petitions were disp osed of on 27.11.1998, directing that for the vacancies upto December 1996, the short listed persons be sent for VLEW training. As on 31.12.1996 additional 75 v acancies were then found available and accordingly a fresh list of 75 candidates was prepared in order of merit, to send them for the VLEW training course. 7. Candidates whose names did not figure in the fresh list, once ag ain filed writ petition(s) before the Court and all such cases including Civil R ule No. 2561 of 1999 filed by the present respondents was disposed of on 30.8.20 01 with the direction that, if the writ petitioners were duly selected in accord ance with the procedure, they should be deputed to undergo the training. 8. When the Government failed to send more candidates for VLEW Trai ning, the respondents initiated a contempt proceeding i.e. COP(C) 407/2002 alleg ing disobedience of the Court’s direction dated 30.8.2001 in Civil Rule No. 2561 /1999. In the said contempt proceeding, the Director of Agriculture took the sta nd that the respondents’ selection was not in accordance with the procedure pres cribed. However as earlier noted, although the selections was contended to be co ntrary to the prescribed procedure, the Agriculture Director was ordered to send the contempt petitioners for training in compliance with earlier order(s) of th e Court, as the authorities hadn’t cancelled the so called illegal select list t ill the filing of the contempt case. 9. The Director, Agriculture, Assam perhaps taking a cue from the C ourt’s order, cancelled the unexecuted select list for all others barring the 18 contempt petitioners. The names of the 18 respondents/writ petitioners was then forwarded by the Director for Government’s approval but as already noted, consi dering that all the vacancies available till 31.12.1996 were already filled up, approval was refused by the Government on 30.6.2004. 10.1 It is argued by the State appellant that respondents/writ petiti oners were not duly selected and since the Courts direction was to send for trai ning only those who were duly selected and too strictly in order of merit agains t the vacancies available upto December, 1996, the respondents not being duly se lected have no enforceable right for being deputed for training. 10.2 Secondly it is contended that all the vacancies uptill December, 1996 have been exhausted and even assuming that respondents are duly selected, they cannot be sent for training after 1‰ decades, on the basis of a selection p rocess initiated through the advertisement made on 20.11.1994, as vacancies accr uing after 31.12.1996, ought to be considered through a fresh selection process in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of Ind ia. 10.3 Mr. K.N. Choudhury specifically contends that there was no direc tion by the Court in any of the earlier proceedings including the contempt proce eding to send the respondents for training, without considering the vacancy posi tion and without ascertaining as to whether the respondents have been duly selec ted or not. Referring to the Chart (Annexure-ii) appended to the Counter affidav it filed in WP(C) 6608/04, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that only the respondent No.16 Bulbul Ali Chakladar at merit position No.3 in the SLSC mer it list can be considered to have a legal right for being sent for the VLEW Trai ning and all the other respondents/writ petitioners, who have not been appropria tely selected or whose merit position was beyond the available vacancies, are no t legally entitled to claim a right for being sent to training. 11.1 Par contra, Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits t hat considering the Courts direction dated 27.11.1998 in the first batch of writ petition; the order dated 30.8.2001 in Civil Rule 2561/1999 and 7.5.2003 in the contempt proceeding, the State is under an obligation to send the respondents f or training. 11.2 It is also urged that the present Appeal has been belatedly file d to challenge the learned Single Judge’s order dated 5.1.2006 in WP(C) 6608/04 and since select list have not been cancelled it has been rightly declared that the Government is obliged to comply with the Court’s earlier order for deputing the writ petitioners for training. 11.3 The learned Senior Counsel further contends that there is no bas is for the contention made that the respondents (barring respondent Nos.10, 13, 14, 16 and 18) were not duly selected and are not within the merit zone vis-à-v is the available vacancies, to be deputed for training. 12 It is finally urged that since the respondents have been agitati ng their claim for being deputed for training for all these years, their claim a gainst the future vacancies arising after 31.12.1996 be considered and they be s ent for training. 13. The learned Single Judge allowed the WP(C) 6608/04 filed by the respondents, on the ground that directions were earlier issued by the Court in i ts various proceedings to depute the writ petitioners for training. Therefore it would be appropriate for us to carefully note the contour of the earlier orders passed by the Court. 14.1 The first direction was given by the Court on 27.11.2008 for sen ding the selected persons for training by re-casting the select list strictly in terms of merit in respect of the seats/vacancies available upto December, 1996. Thus the order of the Court was intended to be executed only after considering the merit of the selected candidates and the available vacancies as on 31.12.199 6. 14.2 In the second round, this Court passed orders on 30.8.2001 while disposing of C.R. 2561/99, giving direction for deputing the respondents for tr aining, if they were selected in course with the procedure . Even on this occas ion, the legality of the selection was to be examined, before the State could se nd a person for training. 14.3 Even in the contempt proceeding, it was the specific stand of th e State that selection of the contempt petitioners (respondents herein) was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. But merely because the select list was not cancelled, the Court declared that the Director, Agriculture cannot refu se to comply with the orders passed by this Court and accordingly ordered closur e of the contempt proceeding by & &..leaving it open for the Director to comply with the Court’s order by sending the contempt petitioners for necessary trainin g. & &. . 14.4 A conjoint reading of the direction(s) given by the Court as not ed above clearly shows that Court’s orders were conditional and respondents were to be sent for training provided they were duly selected and only to the extent of the vacancies available as on December, 1996. It is of significance to note that the respondents have not challenged the State’s averments in the writ proce eding that, majority of the respondents (writ petitioners), were not duly select ed. 15. In the above circumstances in our view, the direction given by t he Court through the impugned order were clearly conditional and cannot confer a legal right on the respondents to demand training as the Court clearly indicate d in its order dated 5.1.2000 that directions are being given, in pursuant to th e earlier direction(s) of the Court. 16. It is also not disputed that the Government refused to send the 18 respondents for training only because vacancies available till 31.12.1996 wer e already exhausted and vacancies were not available for accommodating the respo ndents for the training. 17. That apart, the selection process initiated as far back as in th e year 1994 was being made the basis for demanding training. Since all the avail able vacancies of VLEW were exhausted in the mean time, deputation for training of those who couldn’t be accommodated may not be justified against the future va cancies. 18. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impug ned direction to depute the writ petitioners for training is not justified in th e absence of any unconditional Court(s) directions in any of the earlier proceed ings of the Court. We feel that for the future vacancies after December 1996, it will be appropriate to take recourse to a fresh selection process and the sel ection made a decade and half ago in the year 1996, shouldn’t be made the basis for deputing the leftover candidates, as this would infringe the rights of those , who have subsequently become eligible to offer their candidature for the futu re vacancies. 19. Amongst the respondents only respondent No.16 appears to have be en duly selected and considering that he secured the 3rd position in order of me rit, his claim has been conceded by the appellant. But the remaining respondents are not duly selected and are therefore not in the same footing as him. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion we find that State’s Appeal has merit and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned direction dated 5.1. 2006 passed in WP(C) 6608/2004 are quashed for all the respondents except for re spondent No.16, Bulbul Ali Chakladar. State would now do the needful to arrange for deputing Shri Chakladar for training for the VLEW Course. The appeal is dis posed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.