WP(C) 6699/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hea rd Mr. M R Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education. The petitioners numbering seventeen have filed this writ petition, challenging the annexure-5, order dated 30.09.2010, by which the claim of the p etitioners for their appointment as LP and ME School teachers, pursuant to the a dvertisement issued way back in the year 1996 has been rejected. According to the petitioners, they had responded to the said adv ertisement in the year 1996 by offering their candidatures, pursuant to which t hey were invited for interview which was allegedly held in May, 1997. In paragra ph 8 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioners had been wait ing with expectation that the result would be declared and they would get appoi ntment. Long eleven years after the said interview was held in May, 19 97, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was re gistered and numbered as WP ' No. 2949 of 2008. The prayer in the writ petition was to appoint the petitioners pursuant to the said advertisement and selection. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the cas e of the petitioners. In terms of the said order, now the impugned order has bee n passed on 30.09.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment pu rsuant to the said selection. Mr. M Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the enquiry report dated 19.08.2010, submitted by the Joint Secretary to the Go vt. of Assam to the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department has stren uously argued that the authority ought to have taken steps for publication of the select list . He submits that there was absolutely no reason behind not to p ublish the select list although the interview was conducted way back in the year 1997. On the other hand, Mr. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel Education submits that apart from the delay of long fourteen years, on the basis of disclosures m ade in the enquiry report, there is no question of publication of select list to wards appointment of the petitioners . He also submits that after the aforesaid selection pursuant to the 1996 advertisement which was abandoned , there was f urther selection and appointment . Consequently, no appointment can be made on t he basis of purported selection for which no select list was ever published. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been select ed in the said selection. However, what has been contended is that the Responden ts are duty bound to publish the select list. I have gone through the enquiry re port of which Mr. B Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed much emphasis. On perusal of the said enquiry report, one shocking revelation is that the Sub-Divisional Selection Board while constituting the Selection Board compr ising of four members from amongst the members of the Advisory Board also permit ted one of the members as a nominated member of the particular MLA who was the m ember of the Advisory Board and was also the Member of the Selection Board. Thu s, the said member, instead of participating in the interview board by himself a llowed a nominee of his choice to be a participant member. On this score alone , the selection conducted was not legal and valid and there was violation of Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education ( Provincial) Rules, 1977. Apart from the above, the enquiry report reveals that the Adviso ry Board could not publish the select list due to non- receipt of the same from the selection committee. The fact of non-receipt of the select list was also not reported to the authority. The enquiry report has further revealed that two of the members of the selection committee did not give any marks to the candidates for the particular constituency for which the selection was conducted. The said two members also did not sign the tabulation sheet. The Chairman of the Selectio n Committee in his statement before the Inquiry Officer stated that he had never seen the photocopy of the select list of persons with the names of Sri Brighu K r. Phukan , MLA, Jalukhbari LAC and Sri Kiran Ch. Kakati purportedly prepared in 2001. On the basis of the above enquiry report, the Commissioner and Se cretary, Education Department who was directed to consider the case of the petit ioners has passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2010, highlighting all the abov e aspects of the matter. The impugned order has discussed all the relevant aspec ts of the matter as reflected in the enquiry report. With the kind of anomaly in conducting the interview no direction can be issued to the Respondents to publ ish the select list towards appointing candidates pursuant to the selection proc ess initiated way back in 1996 and 1997. Needless to say that mere inclusion of names in the select list does not give any right for appointment. However, in th e case in hand there is no select list . The case of the petitioners is merely o n assumption that if the select list is published , their names will be included therein and consequently they will be appointed. The kind of disclosures that h as been made in the enquiry report and in the impugned order leads to irreisitib le conclusion that no direction can be issued to the Respondents to act upon the particular selection process initiated way back in 1996 after expiry of about f ifteen years. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage Mr. Pathak , learned Standing Counsel , Educati on by referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported in ( 2007 ) 5 SCC 5 72, State of U.P. -Vs- Nidhi Khanna submits that even otherwise also, having re gard to the fresh selection process, the earlier selection process cannot be dir ected to be acted upon. This aspect of the matter has been discussed above.