WA 323/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.SAIKIA (Amitava Roy, J) The writ appellants, contenders for the post of Overseer in the Soil Con servation Department of the State are before this Court being aggrieved by the d ismissal of their endeavour by the learned Single Judge seeking a direction for appointment thereto. We have heard Mr B Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellants; Ms B Go yal, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr B Gogoi, learned S tanding Counsel, Finance for the respondent No.3. The appellants pursuant to a selection process for filling up six posts of Overseer in the aforementioned Department were empanelled in the waiting list dated 14.9.2007. The validity of the select list of the same date along with th e waiting list was extended thereafter for a year with effect from 18.9.2008 and subsequent thereto for a period of six months on and from 17.9.2009. Though the six advertised posts were filled up on the basis of the select list by candidat es placed above the appellants/writ petitioners, they waited in expectation but in vain. The Finance (SIU) Department of the State in February, 2011 sanctioned a ppointment to additional seven posts of Soil Conservation Overseer during the ye ar 2010-2011. The Minister of the Soil Conservation Department etc. vide his let ter No. MISF.4/22009 dated 21.2.2011, in these circumstances, requested the Comm issioner & Secretary, Soil Conservation, Assam to extend the validity of the sel ect list upto 31.3.2011. As nothing meaningful was forthcoming even thereafter, the appellants/ writ petitioners approached this Court seeking redressal of thei r grievances. In his affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No.2 while admitting the e mpanelment of the appellants/ writ petitioners in the waiting list, clarified t hat it was to accommodate candidates therefrom in case the selectees in the main list did not accept the appointment if offered. According to the answering resp ondent, even if extension was granted to the list, its validity ultimately ended on 17.3.2010. As no other vacancy had occurred during the validity of the selec t list, the candidature of the appellants/ writ petitioners was non-est beyond 1 7.3.2010 vis-à-vis the new vacancies. The learned Single Judge on a consideratio n of the materials on record as stated hereinabove rejected the petition. Mr Banerjee has urged that with the passage of time, as on date, the app ellants/ writ petitioners have become overaged and in view of their selection in the earlier process and for the delay in between for no fault of theirs, they o ught to be accommodated against the new posts. In the alternative and without pr ejudice to the above, he has urged that in any view of the matter, if a fresh se lection process is contemplated to fill up the additional posts, the appellants/ writ petitioners’ over age may be condoned and they may be allowed to participa te therein. The learned counsel for the respondents have urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants/ writ petitioners do not have any subs isting right to seek appointment on the basis of their selection against additio nal posts. They have further urged that the decision on condonation of over age, however, should be left to the appropriate authority if a prayer is made to tha t effect. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are disinclined to issue a direction for appointm ent of the appellants/ writ petitioners as sought for. Not only it is apparent f rom the pleadings of the respondents that the earlier selection process was mean t for six posts of Overseer in the Department which have accordingly been filled up from amongst the candidates superior to them in merit, their enlistment in t he waiting list per se does not vest in them an inviolable right for appointment to the vacancies sanctioned after expiry of the validity period of the select l ist. Any direction as sought for, if issued, would be antithetic to the public p articipatory process otherwise contemplated in law for appointment to a public o ffice. So far as the prayer for condonation of their over age is concerned, if a fresh selection process is initiated by the respondents to fill up the additional post s, the appellants/ writ petitioners may submit a representation to that effect. If it is done, the concerned administrative authority would consider the same in terms of the prevailing norms to that effect as well as the above factual backg round. The writ appeal stands rejected with the observations as above. No costs.