JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Ms. R. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for Secondary Education.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved by her non-selection and by the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the Principal of Kolaigaon Higher Secondary School pursuant to a selection process initiated by an advertisement dated 12.09.2019.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a subject teacher in the Kabirali Higher Secondary School by an order dated 08.05.1996, and thereafter, he was transferred to the Kolaigaon H.S. School against a vacancy which had arisen due to the expiry of a subject teacher. A selection process for the post of Principal in the School had been initiated in the year 2016, and a certain Dibakar Baishya was appointed, by order dated 13.06.2017, as the Principal of the School. The respondent No.5 herein was placed at Sl. No.1 on the waiting list in the aforesaid selection. Although Sri Dibakar Baishya was appointed by order dated 13.06.2017, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018.

4. On 19.01.2018, the Director of Education, BTC, issued an order appointing the respondent No.5 as the Principal of the School effective from 31.01.2018, following the superannuation of the incumbent principal.

5. The petitioner herein challenged the appointment of the respondent No.5 by preferring WP(C) No.2021/2018, which came to be disposed of by the order dated 12.03.2019. This Court had found the appointment of the respondent No. 5 to be unsustainable in law since his appointment was not preceded by a selection process in connection with the vacancy which arose due to the superannuation of Dibakar Baishya. This Court had held that since Dibarkar Baishya had been appointed pursuant to the selection process conducted in 2016-17, the question of appointing the respondent No.5 from the waiting list, since the selected candidate had joined and superannuated, could not arise. For ease of reference, the relevant portion of the order passed by this Court in WP(C)2021/2018 is reproduced below:

“Once a selected candidate is appointed in the post advertised and for which the select list was prepared, purpose of the select list is over and the select list would stand exhausted. Thereafter, it would not be open for the authority to fall back upon the said select list to fill up the subsequent vacancies which may occur post-selection. In the instant case, Shri Dibakar Baishya was selected for the post of Principal of the School. Upon his selection, he was appointed. The moment Shri Dibakar Balshya was appointed, purpose of the select list. vis-à vis the School was fulfilled and the said select list got exhausted. The anticipated vacancy on superannuation of Shri Dibakar Baishya w.e.f 31.01.2018 was never advertised.

In so far a candidate placed in the waiting list is concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 488, had succinctly summed up the position that candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative. A waiting list prepared in an examination does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency, Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. A candidate in the waiting list in order of merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other selected candidate does not join. However, a waiting list cannot