WP(C) 3384/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P J Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M R Pathak, learned standing counsel for the Education Department. 2. In pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Education Department in t he year 1996, the petitioners offered their candidatures and it is claimed that their names having been incorporated in the select list dated 31.3.2001 of the R angia Sub-Division in Kamrup District, they have a right to be appointed in teac hers posts. 3. Mr. M R Pathak, learned standing counsel for the Education Department su bmits that no select list was prepared on 31.3.2001 and there can be no legal cl aim for appointment on the basis of such so called select list. To show that the list relied upon is not a valid select list, the learned counsel refers to the decision of this Court reported in 2006 (1) GLT 80 filed by one Bangkim Kalita w ho similarly sought appointment as his name was enlisted at serial No.9 in the s o called select list dated 31.3.2001. 4. This Court in Bangkim Kalita vs. State of Assam declared that list of 31 .3.2001 is not legally enforceable and the genuine select list is the one dated 29.3.2001. Therefore the select list dated 31.3.2001 cannot be enforced, to give appointment to a so called selectee Bangkim Kalita. 5. I find from the Annexure-B select list dated 31.3.2001 that the signatur es of the members of the Selection Board is not appended thereto and the list on ly contains the signature of the then Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Ass am. Although the Minister is contended to be the Chairman of the Selection Board , a list containing only the Chairman’s signature without the signatures of the other Selection Board Members, cannot in my view, be accepted to be a genuine se lect list. This view is further fortified by the decision already rendered by th is Court in Bangkim Kalita (Supra). 6. As regards the contentions that petitioners are entitled to be appointed as respondent No.4 has been appointed from the list dated 31.3.2001, the learne d counsel for the petitioners despite a pointed querry was unable to show that n ame of respondent No.4 is enlisted in the so called select list dated 31.3.2001 (Annexure-B). Therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner s’ appointment on the basis of the appointment given to respondent No.4 has no f actual foundation and the same is hereby rejected. 7. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the declaration mad e by the Court that the list dated 31.3.2001 is not a genuine select list, I do not find any justification to grant the claim for appointment made by the petiti oners on the basis of the Annexure-B list dated 31.3.2001. 8. Accordingly this writ petition is held to be without any merit and the s ame is dismissed.