WP(C) 4792/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Mr. Y. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel. This writ petition was filed in the year 2005, to be precise on 28.06.20 05, claiming appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistant on the basis of the select list stated to have been prepared in 1996. The case of the petitio ner finds mention in the order dated 21.03.2011. For a ready reference, the orde r is reproduced below: In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has annexed the purport ed result sheet/ select list for the post of Veterinary Field Assistant wherein the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 107 with Roll No. G-190. He has been shown to have secured 75.6% marks. It is his case that while the others from s erial No. 104 to 106 who had also secured 75.6% marks had been appointed, but th e petitioner had been left out and instead, the respondent No. 4 whose merit pos ition is at serial No. 142 under Roll No. Kh-138 securing 74.8%, had been appoi nted. The above plea has been taken by the petitioner only in the additional affidavit and not in the writ petition. In view of the above, it will be appropriate for the State counsel to obtain ins truction in this regard. The respondent No. 4 may also highlight the position. List the matter after two weeks. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms. R . Chokraborty, learned State counsel. After the aforesaid order an affidavit was filed by the respondents. On perusal of the same, it was found that the particular plea of the petitioner that altho ugh his merit position was at serial No. 107, but a candidate with merit positio n 142 was appointed, has not been dealt with in the affidavit. However, today Mr . Ghosh, learned State counsel has produced the letter dated 28.07.2011 addresse d to him by the Director of A.H. & Vety. Department assigning the reasons for pr eferring the candidate at serial No. 142 ahead of the petitioner whose merit pos ition was at serial No. 107. As per the said written statement, the candidate at serial No. 142 (respondent No. 4) came within the zone of consideration being a reserved category candidate (OBC). Alongwith the said written statement the aut hority has also enclosed a copy of the Full Bench decision in the matter dated 06.03.2006. Although the respondents have contended that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as OBC category candidate, but according to the petitioner there being no reflec tion of the respondent No. 4 to be an OBC candidate in the merit list, there cou ld not have any preference for OBC category candidate. However, by producing the Roster, Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel has contended that the respondent No. 4 in fact was appointed as OBC candidate. Irrespective of the aforesaid position, nothing can be done in the matter in vie w of the decision of the Full Bench in which it has been categorically observed that the select list of 1996 and 1998 cannot be operated any further. Further in the said decision it has been held that the appointments made pursuant to the said select list should not be disturbed. It has also been held that in respect of future selection, the petitioners involved in the said proceeding shall be e ntitled to participate in the same. It has also been provided that if any candid ate has become ineligible due to over age, he will be entitled to make appropria te application for relaxation of age. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly th e writ petition is dismissed. In fact, the writ petition should have been tagged with other writ petitions which were disposed of by the Full Bench.