WP(C) 3950/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was engage d as Muster Roll Grade IV Worker in the month of December, 1987 and since then h e has been rendering his services as such on fixed pay in the establishment of E xecutive Engineer, Nagaon Division (Irrigation), Nagaon. From time to time, he w as allowed to officiate as Lower Division Assistant against leave vacancies. The Government of Assam adopted some schemes for regularization/appointment of Must er Roll Workers against vacant posts of Grade IV, which is reflected in the lett er No. CEI(E)169/95/169 dated 12/7/2004 issued by the Respondent Chief Engineer. The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted below. For selection of suitable candidates for vacant regular Grade IV posts, existin g departmental Grade IV staff and Muster Roll labourers may be considered depend ing upon their qualification/experience/merit. Notices are to be served to all d epartmental Grade IV staff/Muster Roll labourers through Assistant Executive Eng ineer/Sectional Officers asking for application for these posts. 3. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, a selection committee was constituted for selection of candidates for Grade III and Grade IV posts under E xecutive Engineer, Nagaon Division (Irrigation), Nagaon. The said Selection Comm ittee held its meeting on 2/2/2005 and in the said selection, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant. His name a ppeared at Sl. No. 1 of the panel of candidates dated 2/2/2005. On the basis of this select list, the petitioner claims appointment to the post of Lower Divisio n Assistant. The petitioner has averred that inspite of such selection and being placed at the top of the list he has not yet been appointed till date. On the o ther hand some candidates outside the select list, as stated in paragraph 11 of the petition, have been appointed. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 18/8/2006, in the interim, directed that one post of LDA in the office of the Ex ecutive Engineer, Nagaon Division (Irrigation), Nagaon, should be kept vacant ti ll the returnable date. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents. 4. Mr. Sharma, while reiterating the above, has expressed apprehens ion that the petitioner would be deprived of appointment and this will amount to denial of justice to him. 5. Mr. Barman on the other hand submits that the select list having been prepared in the year 2005 has lost its validity as in normal course, a sel ect list remains valid for a period of one year only unless extended by the auth orities concerned. 6. Mr. Sharma, in reply, submits that since the petition was filed before the expiry of validity period of the select list, it is taken to be still valid and there is no question of extension of the select list. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the averments made i n the petition and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly the select list is dated 2/2/2005. In normal course it would have spe nt its force on 31/1/2006 only and the petitioner would have no subsisting right as on date. The petition, being filed on 9/8/2006, a case is made out by the pe titioner to have his case considered for appointment. However, in absence of any counter from the State respondents, it is not possible to ascertain whether the vacancies for which the petitioner was selected still exists in the establishme nt of the respondent No. 4, the Executive Engineer, Nagaon Division (Irrigation) , Nagaon. Though this Court on 18/8/2006, in the interim, directed the responden t authorities to keep one post of LDA vacant in the establishment of the respond ent No. 4 till the returnable date, the subsequent orders do not reveal that the same was continued thereafter. Be that as it may, the petitioner being placed a t the top of the select list prepared by a duly constituted Selection Committee, the petitioner has accrued a right to be considered for appointment as a select ed candidate. In view of the above, this petition is disposed with a direction t o the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointm ent to the post of LDA subject to availability of vacancy in the establishment o f the respondent No. 4, keeping in view the letter dated 12/7/2004 within a peri od of two month from today. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.