A person can challenge an appointment only if they have a genuine grievance and a legal right to be considered for the appointment.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. Four Judicial Officers of the State of Meghalaya by the present writ petition have challenged the notification dated 22nd August 2000, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department, appointing Sri Wanlura Diengdoh, an advocate, as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shillong in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts in brief is that an advertisement dated 13th July 1999 was issued by the Registrar General of the High Court inviting application from the practicing advocates for recruitment to the post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shillong (Grade-I Judicial post of State of Maghalaya) having minimum seven years standing practice at the bar and maximum age limit of 45 years as on 1st June 1999, pursuant to which five candidates including the Respondent No. 3 applied or selection against the said post. On the basis of the selection made, a select list was thereafter prepared selecting three candidates for appointment against the said post wherein one Sudip Ranjan Sen, was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the Respondent No. 3 at Sl. No. 2. Pursuant to such selection the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, vide order dated 6th July 2000. Another post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge was created by the Government of Meghalaya vide order dated 18th July 2000, in view of the request made by the High Court contained in the communication dated 15th May 1999 issued by the Registrar General requesting the Government of Meghalaya to increase the strength of the Cadre of Grade-I Judicial Officer of the state from 3 (three) to 5 (five) and also to accord necessary sanction for creation of said posts along with supporting staff as proposed. Against the said newly created post, the Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, by the Government of Meghalaya vide notification dated 22nd August 2000 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India on the basis of his position in the merit list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 13th July 1999. The present Petitioners are challenging the said order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition.

3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Sharma, learned Advocate General, Meghalaya, Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Registrar General of the High Court and Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the advertisement issued by the authority on 13th July 1999 being for a single post of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, the select list prepared pursuant to the selection made in terms of the said advertisement, gets exhausted as soon as the person whose name appeared at Sl. No. 1 of the select list was appointed. According to Mr. Misra, no appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge can be made against the vacancies created by the Government on 18th July 2000 from out of the candidates whose name appears in the said select list. In the instant case as the Respondent No. 3 was appointed vide notification dated 22nd August 2000 as Addl. District and Sessions Judge against the newly created post and pursuant to the selection made in terms of the advertisement dated 13th July 1999, the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 is illegal and contrary to law and therefore, the said appointment is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the action of the Government in filling up of the newly created post by the Respondent No. 3 amounts to denial of opportunity to the Petitioners to apply for the said post for selection. Countering the contention of the Respondents regarding the locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge such appointmen