WP(C) 5389/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. . Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to appoint him as Surveillance Worker in terms of the Annex ure-III list. The further prayer made is to set aside and quash the Annexure-VA order dated 17.6.2003. By the said order dated 17.6.2003, the authority in con sideration of the order dated 19.10.2001 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.786/1 999 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment pursuant to the purport ed Select List. Although in terms of the said order dated 19.10.2001, the petit ioner was required to file representation, but he did not file any such represen tation. However, the authority considered his case in terms of the order passed by this Court. As per the said order, the Select List, on which the petitioner based his claim, is not the Select List, but a list of particulars of the indiv iduals, who had served as Surveillance Worker from time to time. The list was pr epared so that in case of any future necessity, persons could be appointed from the said list. As against the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as Surveillance Worker wayback in 1986 and has been working under the respondents, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was appointed for only two months and that, he has not been continuing in service. When the aforesaid pl ea of the respondents was pointed out to the petitioner, the learned counsel rep resenting him took time on 26.10.2009 to obtain instructions. Today, Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received verbal instructions from the petitioner that he has been continuing in service. However, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed and thus, the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit goes uncontroverted. Merely because the petitioner worked for two months in 1986, he cannot claim aut omatic regularization of his service and/or appointment pursuant to the list in question, which is not a Select List. Writ petition is dismissed.