WP(C) 4718/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner has approached the Court seeking direction for his appointment on the basis of a select list for appointment of teachers in ME/LP Schools of Kari mganj District purportedly prepared by the Sub-divisional Level Advisory Board o n 31.5.1993. 2. Mr. UK Goswami, learned standing counsel on the basis of instruction rec eived from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam on 7th October, 2010 subm its that no meeting of Sub-divisional Level Advisory Board, Karimganj was never held on 31.5.1993, as is claimed and select list was ever published on 31.5.1993 and the petitioner is not a selected candidate as has been claimed. The learne d standing counsel further submits that in any case such an old select list even if assumed to have been published, cannot be acted upon after 17 years as life of a select list is limited usually for a period of one year. 3. Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel contends that some persons, who secured sel ection and appointment on the strength of select list of 31.5.1993, had earlier approached this Court seeking direction for their appointment and on the basis o f the direction for consideration issued by the Court, the writ petitioners ther ein i.e. Smti. Jyotsna Singha and others were given appointment. 4. However, it appears that in a subsequent proceeding i.e. in WP(C) No. 5 696/2004, this Court in its judgment dated 9.11.2005 has held that appointments were undeservedly given to the petitioners therein on wrong notion and declared the appointments as non est and void ab-initio. 5. Mr. Dhar has referred to the later judgment passed by the Division Bench on 15.5.08 in Writ Appeal No. 652/05 filed by the aggrieved writ petitioner to show that the order of the learned Single Judge was modified on the following te rms:- 17. The allegation of the writ appellants is that a large number of illegal appointments in the district of Karimganj came to be made. (in paragraph-II of t he writ petition supported by Annexure-16,17,18 and 19). They show that some app ointments were made as late in June, 1999. Such an allegation went unrebutted. F aced with such a situation, in our view one alternative would have been to call upon the State to explain the various appointments made in the district of Karim ganj pursuant to the advertisement dated 3.9.1991 referred to earlier, and exami ne whether such appointments were in accordance with law. After such an examinat ion if some of the appointments were found to be in violation of the law, for an y reason, declare them to be invalid. But such an exercise would unsettle perhap s a large number of persons who have been working for a considerable period of time. While this Court is not inclined to undertake such a drastic course in the context of a large number of appointments made long back, though made contrary to the stipulation of law, however this Court would not be inclined to make such a declaration. Declaring the appointments of the appellants herein as illegal, in our view, would not meet the ends of justice as that would amount to punishi ng a person for the mistake of approaching this Court while the others who se cured the benefit of an appointment in contravention of the stipulation of law, would continue to enjoy the benefit. 18. In the circumstances, the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order u nder appeal to the limited extent of setting aside the declaration of the appoin tment of appellants as void ab-initio and the consequent directions issued in th e light of the above declaration. 19. Parting with the case, we would like to place on record that this case is a classic illustration of the abuse of the judicial process by everybody conc erned. We strongly condemn the attitude of the State of not filing a proper affi davit-in-opposition before this Court (in various matters) apprising this Court of the correct factual position leading to a situation where this Court is compe lled to proceed on the basis of the averments made by the petitioners on oath wh ich remain uncontroverted. This Court is, therefore, compelled to decide the iss ues on the basis of presumptions, if the State only apprises the Court of the co rrect fact position by filing a proper affidavit in time, most of such adjudicat ion leading to further complications in the administration could be avoided. 6. By referring to the above observations of Division Bench, the earned cou nsel submits that the petitioner has a right to be considered for appointment on the strength of the selection made in the year 1993, in pursuant to the adverti sement issued on 3.9.1991. 7. I have considered the submissions made and find that the petitioners for last 17 years have slept over their rights, if any. Now because of Court orders secured by the other alert aspirants, they are seeking direction of the Court f or their own appointment in pursuant to the purported select list of 31.5.1993 T he petitioners I find are not in the same footing as the writ petitioners in WP( C) No. 5636/2004 as others were vigilant about their rights. 8. Considering the laches on the part of the petitioners and the life of a select list and further considering the submissions made by the learned standing counsel that no meeting of he Selection Committee was ever held on 31.5.1993 in Karimganj district and no select list was prepared on 31.5.1993, I see no justi fication to give direction for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Ass istant Teacher. 9. It is also noteworthy that right of appointment does not automatically a ccrue on the basis of selection. For this and foregoing, this case is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed. Copy of the instruction dated 7th October, 2010 of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, be kept in the case record.