JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners were duly selected and their names were included in a select list dated 03.11.2000 and more particularly, in respect to a list for future vacancies. It appears that the said select list was extended by the authorities from time to time as would appear from Annexures 3, 4, 5 and 6. In the meantime, it appears on record that a writ petition was filed being WP(C) No.8633/2003 wherein the present writ petitioner No.4 was one of the writ petitioners in the said proceedings. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 31.10.2009 with a direction that in case the select list dated 03.11.2000 is/are in force or is/are sought to be extended and the concerned departmental authorities intend to make further appointments therefrom, they would do so scrupulously following the order of merit of the candidates therein. It was further clarified in the said order that the directions so given was for the reason that the petitioners therein had approached this Court at a point of time when the select list was/were valid. It was further observed that the order should not be construed to be a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners and the issue is left to them to be attended to in accordance with law.

4. It further appears from the records that there was another writ petition being filed in the year 2010 being WP(C) No.5366/2010 which was also disposed of in terms with the directions so given in the order dated 30.10.2009 in WP(C) No.8633/2003. It is relevant to mention herein that in WP(C) No.5366/2010, the petitioner Nos. 6, 8 and 9 of the present writ petition were the petitioners in the said writ petition.

5. It further appears from the records that on 17.08.2010, the Director of Accounts and Treasuries had passed an order stating inter alia that there shall be no further extension of the validity of the select list dated 03.11.2000 as the said select list had not been re-validated since 03.11.2005. It was further made clear that the select list dated 03.11.2000 was not valid and hence it is not to be considered for appointment of the persons in the select list for the post of Assistant Account Officers.

6. It further appears from the records that there was another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.3276/2013 which was also disposed of vide an order dated 11.08.2015. A perusal of the array of parties in WP(C) No.3276/2013 would show that the petitioner No.9 herein was one of the petitioners in the said proceedings. Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the said order dated 11.08.2015 being relevant are quoted hereinunder:

“22. It is a settled proposition that merely because name of a candidate appears in the select list, he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right on the basis of such selection. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has made it abundantly clear that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. He acquires no vested right of appointment. In the present case, names of petitioners Nos. 1 to 13 are in the select list for future vacancies and not in the select list for the actual vacancies. Further, petitioner Nos. 14 to 29 are not selected at all. The legal position is further clear that the moment the posts advertised are filled up the select list would get exhausted. It is another matter that in the present case the respondents had made appointments beyond the notified vacancies, but the same cannot be a ground to confer a right to the petitioners to a similar course of act