This writ application has been filed by a person claiming that a direction may be issued to the respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post and for further direction to respondent Nos 2 and 3 not to regularise the service of the respondent Nos 5, 6 and 7. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 3. The petitioner is a graduate in Arts. There was an advertisement dated 3.9.91 by the Education Department, Govt of Assam for recruitment of Assistant Teachers for High and Higher Secondary Schools, and the petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner along with other persons were called for interview by the Secondary Education Board constituted for Cachar District and after interview the Board compiled a list according to the Assembly Constituency. This list was published by the respondent No. 3. A copy of the relevant portion of the list (Borkhola Segment) is enclosed as Annexure 1. This list will show that it is merely a panel list and it does not mean that panel is on the basis of merit. The name of the petitioner appears at SI No. 3. Thereafter, the list was published, appointments were given by authority but in giving appointments the seriatim in the list was not maintained. Being aggrieved by this action one Miss Arundhati Devi filed a civil rule being Civil Rule No. 2071 of 1994 and this Court on 3.6.94 passed the following order: “Mean while if any appointment is required to be made, it will be made strictly in accordance with the select list prepared by the District Level Selection Board and the appointment shall be made in seriatim." 4. Another civil rule being Civil Rule No. 4638 of 1994 was filed by one Sri Joydeep Kumar Das and the same order was passed by this Court and the select list was extended until further orders by order dated 22.11.94 i.e. Annexure 3 to the writ application. 5. Out of empaneled candidates for Borkhola Segments, five persons have been appointed but in making the appointment the seriatim in the list was not maintained. Even it is alleged that some persons who were not empaneled also have been appointed. That statement finds place in paragraph 8 of the writ application. That is quoted below: “8. 5. Out of empaneled candidates for Borkhola Segments, five persons have been appointed but in making the appointment the seriatim in the list was not maintained. Even it is alleged that some persons who were not empaneled also have been appointed. That statement finds place in paragraph 8 of the writ application. That is quoted below: “8. That the respondent No. 4, the then ISCDC Silchar by his order dated 28.11.94 appointed respondent No. 5 Smti Anuva Biswas as Assistant Teacher in the Janakalyan High School, Laburdon, Cachar, who is not an empaneled candidate in Borkhola Segment. Respondent No. 4 again by an order dated 13.5.94 appointed /? respondent No. 6 Pradip Ranjan Paul as Assistant Teacher in the Zilkadar Ali Higher Secondary School, Arunachal by breaking the seriatim (whose serial number in the panel list of Borkhola Constituency is 4). Further more, the respondent No. 4, the then IS/CDC by its order dated 25.1.96 appointed respondent No. 7, Lalan Prasad Kar by breaking the seriatim (His serial No. in the panel list for Borkhola Constituency is 10).” 6. The petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Castes and is entitled to preference to recruitment as per provisions of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978. It is submitted that the appointment of respondent Nos 5, 6 and 7 an arbitrary exercise of power and it is further submitted that because of retirement of one Sri Purnanendu Barman, Assistant Teacher, Raja GC Memorial HS School, Borkhola a vacancy was there where even the petitioner can be accommodated without disturbing respondent Nos 5,6 and 7. 7. I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Smti K. Devi, learned Govt Advocate and learned Advocate for the respondents Nos 5, 6 and 7. The Govt Advocate draws my attention to Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 and he draws my e attention to Rule 7 (0- Rule 7 provides for direct recruitment and it provides that there will be Selection Board and the Board is to recommend a list of the candidates for direct recruitment in order of preference ie Rule 7 (1) (b) of the Rules. Rule 7 (d) further provides that the Board shall furnish to the appointing authority a list of candidates recommended by it in order of preference. Rule 7 (d) further provides that the Board shall furnish to the appointing authority a list of candidates recommended by it in order of preference. The number of candidates in such a list may be approximately double the number of vacancies. On the ./ basis of this rule it is argued that the list as Annexure 1 does not specifically state to be a list in order of merit. It must be a list in order of preference because the Board must be deemed to be aware of the provisions of law. But the learned Govt Advocate submits that no relief can be, claimed on the basis of this list as the validity of the list has already been expired. Rule 7 (f) is quoted below : “The list mentioned in clause (d) and (c) of this rule shall remain valid for one year from the date of publication unless the Govt extend the validity of the list for further period in the public interest in consultation with the Board.” 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent that the Court also cannot extend the validity of such a select list and in support of this contention the learned Govt Advocate places reliance in (1995) 2 GLR 359 (Indian Airlines & another vs. Debashis Sutradhar & others) (1995 (2) GLJ 540) wherein in paragraphs 5 and 6, the law has been laid down as follows: “ 5. The legal question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether the direction given by the learned Single Judge that the validity of the Select List will be kept alive till the petitioners/respondents have been offered appointment is correct in law or not. The legal question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether the direction given by the learned Single Judge that the validity of the Select List will be kept alive till the petitioners/respondents have been offered appointment is correct in law or not. The aforesaid question had come for consideration before the Apex Court recently and the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal & others vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & others, (1995) 3 SCC 486 has held after noticing various other decisions of the Apex Court that in case Select List is prepared for a specific number of vacancies, then even though the Select List may have been prepared for larger number of candidates the validity of the Select List comes to an end as soon as candidates have been appointed on the vacancies which were advertised to be filled up and the validity of the Select List would automatically come to an end despite the fact there may be statutory rules which may prescribe that the Select List would remain valid for a certain period. From the aforesaid principle which had been laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the Select List is meant to fill up the vacancies which had been specifically advertised or notified, the life of the Select List cannot be extended for the purposes of filling up the future vacancies as the same would violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is clear that some of the candidates may not fulfil the age criteria when the advertisement is made and may fulfil the age criteria in future if the advertisement/notification is made in future for filling up the future vacancies and keeping alive a Select List for an unlimited period even after filling up the vacancies for which an advertisement was made would deprive the candidates who would have a chance of getting employment in pursuance of a future advertisement for filling up future vacancies. This very principle has also been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh vs. The State of Haryana 1993 Supp(4)SCC 377.” “6. A bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly shows that the validity of the Select List was until September, 1993, which period has long came to an end. This very principle has also been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh vs. The State of Haryana 1993 Supp(4)SCC 377.” “6. A bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly shows that the validity of the Select List was until September, 1993, which period has long came to an end. We cannot imagine by what stretch of imagination, the validity of the Select List can now be extended until the year. 1995 for a selection which had been held in the year, 1989. If we permit the validity of the Select List which had been prepared in pursuance of the examination which had been held in the year, 1989 for selection and appointment in the year, 1995 ie, after a lapse of six years, in our opinion, it would clearly violate the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it would deprive the candidates who had become eligible for applying for selection to appointed as Traffic Assistants during this period.” 9. The learned Advocate also relies on (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of UP & others vs. Harish Chandra & others) wherein in paragraphs 9 and 10 of that, judgment, the Supreme Court pointed out that if a statutory rule provides for expiry of select list at the end of a particular period, the High Court cannot extend the validity of such a select list and no Mandamus can be issued inasmuch as in such a situation issuance of Mandamus will be against the statutory provision. It was further pointed out by the Apex Court that recruitment after such expiry of panel the select list cannot be extended by the High Court and hence no Mandamus can be issued either to refrain from enforcing the law or of Act contrary to the law. In this particular case the selection was on 23.11.93 and by operation of law that will come to an end on 22.11.94. This writ application was filed on 4th September, 1996 and as such this Court in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, cannot issue a Mandamus as prayed for. This writ application was filed on 4th September, 1996 and as such this Court in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, cannot issue a Mandamus as prayed for. But before I part with record I make it clear that injustice was caused to the petitioner and the authority shall try to wipe out this injustice by giving, if possible, necessary appointment to the petitioner as he was duly selected, if necessary by relaxing the age of the petitioner. 10. This disposes of the writ application.