WA 364/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (Amitava Roy,J) In challenge is the judgment and order dtd. 22.05.2008 passed in a series of wri t petitions being WP(C) Nos.778/2007, 2899/2007 and 3054/2007. Thereby, the clai m of the present writ appellants (writ petitioners in WP(C) No.778/2007) for app ointment to Grade - IV post in the amalgamated establishment of Deputy Commissio ner, Kokrajhar as candidates selected and empanelled in the select list dated 06 .12.2004 had been negated. We have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the writ appellants and Mr. P .S. Deka, learned State counsel for the official respondents. The backdrop of facts, in short, would have to be outlined. An advertisement wa s issued on 26/29.12.2003 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar for filling up v acant posts, amongst others of Process Server, Grade - IV during the year 2003-2 004. The writ appellants/writ petitioners participated in the process and in th e select list that followed on 06.12.2004, all of them were included therein. H owever, as the State Level Empowered Committee accorded approval for appointment in only 2(Two) Grade - IV posts, two persons from the select list aforementione d were appointed. Consequentially, for want of such approval, others though empa nelled were not provided with appointments. The writ appellants/writ petitioner s being aggrieved, approached this Court with WP(C) No.8044/2005 which was dispo sed of on 28.11.2005 with the direction to the official respondents impleaded th erein to consider their grievances. The writ appellants/writ petitioners were l eft at liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the Deputy Commiss ioner, Kokrajhar for consideration thereof on merits. A representation was acco rdingly submitted on 30.11.2005 in connection with which a personal hearing was also extended to the writ appellants/writ petitioners. As the matter was pending at that, the Govt. of Assam in the General Administrat ion (B) Department vide communication No.GAG(B)174/2006/PT/80 dated 03.02.2007 c onveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, the approval of the Government to wards filling up of vacant sanctioned posts of Grade - III & IV in the establish ment of the latter. Apprehending that inspite of the above they would still be left aside for appointments, the writ appellants/writ petitioners, as above, app roached this Court with WP(C) No.778/2007. Some of the selected candidates simi larly placed also instituted a separate writ proceeding being WP(C) No.3054/2007 . This move was resisted by yet another section vide WP(C) No.2899/2007 seeking a direction from this Court to the State authorities not to fill up the vacant posts of Process Server in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissio ner, Kokrajhar from the select list dated 06.12.2004 contending that the validit y thereof had since expired. As by the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge required the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar to issue an advertiseme nt for initiating a fresh process for filling up the existing vacant posts in Gr ade - III & Grade - IV of his establishment as per the communication dated 03.02 .2007, the writ appellants/writ petitioners being aggrieved seek redress in the instant appeal. Whereas, Mr. Dasgupta with profuse reference to the notification dated 03.02.200 7 has submitted that writ appellants/writ petitioners having approached this Cou rt at the first instance during the subsistence of the select list dated 06.12.2 004, they have a preferential right to be appointed against the Grade - IV posts mentioned therein, Mr. Deka has urged that a plain reading of this communicatio n would reveal that the claim so made is misconceived and untenable in law and o n facts. As the approval contained in the letter dated 03.02.2007 contemplates a fresh selection process in alignment with the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and B udget Management Act,2005 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act, 2005), no appointment thereto from any earlier select list is permissible, he contende d. Mr. Dasgupta has endeavoured to meet this plea of the State respondents by refer ring to a letter dated 07.04.2007 (Annexure - 7 to the Review Petition No.2/2009 ) of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar recommending extension of the select lis t dated 06.12.2004 beyond 04.06.2006, so as to facilitate appointment of the wri t appellants/writ petitioners against the posts approval for which had been conv eyed by the letter dated 03.02.2007. Mr. Deka, however as against this has draw n the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the offici al respondents in the aforementioned writ petitions to the effect that the Deput y Commissioner, Kokrajhar had issued the aforementioned letter being totally unm indful of the spirit of the communication dated 03.02.2007. That the writ appellants/writ petitioners had been selected in the process initi ated by the advertisement dated 26/29.12.2003 and that their names were included in the select list dated 06.12.2004 is not in dispute. There is no wrangle at the Bar that at all relevant times during the subsistence of the aforementioned select list, approval of the State Level Empowered Committee was an essential pr econdition for valid appointment to any post in the State service. That till 04 .06.2006 the said State Level Empowered Committee had accorded approval to the f illing up of only 2 posts of Process Server Grade - IV in the amalgamated establ ishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar is a matter of record. It is not the claim of the writ appellants/writ petitioners that having regard to their po sition in the select list two of them ought to have been so appointed. This Cour t while disposing of WP(C) No.8044/2005 on 28.11.2005 as well did not recognize any unassailable right of the writ appellants/writ petitioners for appointment o nly on the basis of their selection and empanelment in the select list dated 06. 12.2004. Though, the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar by his letter dated 07.04.20 07 referred to hereinabove seemed to have recommended extension of the validity of the select list beyond 04.06.2006 so as to accommodate them against the relev ant posts mentioned in the letter dated 03.02.2007, such a request did not meet with any favourable response from the concerned State authorities. The fact rem ains thereafter that the select list of the writ appellants/writ petitioners was not extended beyond 04.06.2006. A bare perusal of the letter dated 03.02.2007 would demonstrate in clear terms t hat the posts as mentioned therein were to be filled up in compliance with the A ct, which is a legislation of the year 2005. A cumulative reading of the variou s paragraphs of the said letter, in our opinion testifies without any manner of doubt that a fresh selection was contemplated thereby to permit appointments to the said posts on the basis thereof. Had it been the intention of the concerned State Authorities to fill up these from any select list of an earlier process, in our comprehension clear indication to that effect would have been available i n this letter. The emphasis to fill up the posts on the basis of the Act,2005 h aving regard to the year of its enactment in our view makes it abundantly clear that appointments from a select list even if valid and pending on that date had not been intended. As aforementioned the select list in which the names of the writ appellants/writ petitioners had been included had spent, its term on 04.06. 2006 and therefore was clearly non est in law on 03.02.2007. In any view of the matter, therefore their claim for appointment on the basis of their selection culminating the select list dated 06.12.2004 as extended is unt enable vis-à-vis the letter dated 03.02.2007. The learned Single Judge in our u nhesitant opinion has analyzed the facts rightly and in the proper perspective a nd therefore the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference i n the appeal. The appeal, thus being without any merit is dismissed. No costs.