The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prepare a separate Select List for each year and consider only eligible candidates for that particular year, as well as the illegality of clubbing vacancies for multiple years.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated 26. 5. 1999 in LPA (SW) No. 222/99.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case are that a Select List dated 28. 3. 1991 was prepared for induction of State Forest Service officials of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter refereed to as 'ifs' ). The appellant's name figured in the Select List at serial number 26. The total number of vacancies were 35, and hence ordinarily the appellant should have been selected and appointed. However, the Select List was challenged in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court dated 12. 3. 1993. The operative portion of that order states: this order will dispose of writ petitions Nos. 400/90, 80, 249, 618, 933, 619, 1395 of 1991, 264, 208, 287 and 266 of 1992, because they raise a common question of law and fact. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has placed on record a copy of the communication dated 11. 3. 1993 wherein it has been stated: in case the petitioners withdraw the writ petitions, Government shall refer the proposed select list of IFS of 1991 back to the Selection Committee where the points raised by the petitioners and respondents will be considered under rules by the said Selection Committee. The final list approved by the Selection Committee shall be final and binding on the parties. In view of the above assurance, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that they do not want to press the writ petitions and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. We order accordingly.

( 3 ) WE were surprised to read the aforesaid order dated 12. 3. 1993. When a Select List is challenged the High Court can either quash the Select List in question if it finds it invalid, or it can uphold the validity of the List, but instead of taking recourse to either of these two courses of action, the Division Bench devised a third method of disposing of the case which, in our opinion, was wholly unjustified and unwarranted. The Division Bench by its order dated 12. 3. 1993 sent back the Select List to the Selection Committee for considering the points raised by the writ petitioners. In this way, the High Court practically abdicated its function. It was the duty of the High Court to decide the controversy as to whether the Select List dated 28. 3. 1991 was valid or not, and it was wholly unjustified and improper on its part to refuse to perform its function and instead send the matter back to the Selection Committee.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, what has happened has happened. Subsequent to the High Court's order dated 12. 3. 1993 a fresh exercise was undertaken by the State Government and the State Government prepared a fresh Select List dated 12. 9. 1995. The appellant's name was not in that Select List. It appears that the Select List dated 12. 9. 1995 has clubbed together the vacancies for the period 1991-1995 which, in our opinion, was in violation of Regulation 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'regulation' ). In the Select List of 12. 9. 1995, many persons who were not eligible for selection for the year 1991 have been included, while the appellant has been excluded.

( 5 ) THUS, the persons at serial numbers 32 to 35 in the Select List of 1995 were not even eligible for selection in 1991. In the notification dated 12. 9. 1995, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-4 to this appeal shows that the persons at serial numbers 27 to 28 were not even eligible in 1991. However, by the impugned judgment dated 24. 9. 1998, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 26. 5. 1999. Hence, this appeal by way of s