1) Petitioners are not appearing in the case after November, 1998 though the case has come up before the Court thereafter on 6-9-99, 22-10-99 and 22-4-2000. Today, petitioners or their counsel has not appeared to pursue and prosecute the case. From examination of the file, it is seen that the petitioners are infact challenging the selection of private respondents 3,4, and 5 as Lecturers in Medicine in the Medical Education Department of the State Government as communicated by Public Service Commission, Respondent- No. 2 to Commissioner cum Secretary to Government Health and Medical Education Department, Respondent No. 1 However, the appointment of the respondents based on the above selection, if any made is not challenged in this petition. The very appointment as Lecturers in Medicine in the Medical Education Department of the State is not under challenge in this petition. Merely, because these respondents have been panel list on the select list does not confer any right of substantive appointment on these respondents. So long this recommendation and empanelment made by Public Service Commission is not acted upon by issuance of appointment order(s), petitioners have no right to question empanelling of respondents as selectees for appointment. Viewed thus, the petition itself is premature and in any case in absence of challenge to appointment order, is not maintainable.

2) In result, the writ petition is dismissed at threshold.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document