Brijesh Kumar C. J. -The above noted appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.1997 passed in Civil Rule No. 5216 of 1996 and other connected civil rules in the bunch. The dispute relates to appointment of Assistant Teachers, Language Teachers and teachers of other categories in the District of Nalbari. The appellants in all the appeals, except a few, were not parties in the writ proceedings. They, however, feel affected by the judgment dated 2.8.1997 as a result of which their services have been sought to be terminated. Hence they have preferred the appeals. Since the same questions are involved in all the appeals and they arise out of a common judgment passed in bunch of writ petitions, these appeals are being disposed of by this common orders. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing in different appeals on behalf of the appellants, namely, Shri N. Dutta, Shri GK Bhattacharjee, Shri GP Bhowmik, Shri AK Choudhury and learned counsel appearing for the State. 3. An advertisement was published on 3.9.91 in Assam Tribune inviting application for selection and appointment to 200 posts of Assistant Teacher and 100 posts of Language Teacher. The District Selection Board for Nalbari District published select list on 4.1.95 after due selection. Separate lists were prepared for different constituencies, namely, Barkhetri, Dharampur, Nalbari, Patacharkuchi and Barama. Grievances were raised by the petitioners in the 'petitions in the bunch that the appointments made by the authorities were illegal inasmuch as several person's whose names did not find mentioned in the select list had been appointed. Some of the appointments were made ignoring the candidates in the select list with higher merit and position in the select list. Request was made by the petitioners for appointment in accordance with the merit of the select list. It also transpires that certain petitions were filed earlier and this Court issued orders on November 18 and 19, 1996 for different constituencies for making the appointment in accordance with merit. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed in Civil Rule No. 5216 of 1996 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department. It also transpires that certain petitions were filed earlier and this Court issued orders on November 18 and 19, 1996 for different constituencies for making the appointment in accordance with merit. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed in Civil Rule No. 5216 of 1996 by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department. It was not denied, rather admitted that some appointments had been wrongly made, namely, some persons who were not in the select list were given appointment and in some cases candidates of lower merit in the select list had been given appointment ignoring the candidates of higher merit. The learned Single Judge considering all the facts and circumstances, disposed of the bunch of the petitions with the following directions: “For the reasons stated above, I dispose of this batch of writ petitions with a direction that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department, and the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, shall within two months from today give effect to the orders dated 18th, 19th and 20th November, 1996. (Annexures F and G to the affidavit-in-opposition and Annexures K, L and M to the further affidavit) relating to Dharamapur, Nalbari, Barama, Barkhetri and Patacharkuchi Constituencies of Nalbari District, cancelling the appointments of persons outside the select lists as well as the appointments of all those persons who were not entitled to appointment on the basis of their position of merit in the select lists and as per the provisions of law for reservation, and in their place offer appointment to the candidates who were entitled to appointment as per their position of merit in the select lists and as per the provisions of law for reservation........... A person aggrieved by the said orders dated 18th, 19th and 20th November, 1996, including a person whose appointment is cancelled may make his submission before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Education Department, as mentioned in the said orders. I further direct that all ad hoc appointments existing as on date shall forthwith be terminated by the State respondents. 4. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that those who had already been appointed and were working, their appointments could not be cancelled, nor their services could be terminated without those persons being afforded opportunity of hearing. I further direct that all ad hoc appointments existing as on date shall forthwith be terminated by the State respondents. 4. On behalf of the appellants it has been submitted that those who had already been appointed and were working, their appointments could not be cancelled, nor their services could be terminated without those persons being afforded opportunity of hearing. Barring a few, none of them were impleaded as parties in the petition, one or two of such persons though impleaded, were not issued notices and the cases were decided against them. One of the appellants could not file affidavit-in-opposition before the petitions were heard and disposed of. So far this aspect of the matter is concerned, learned Single Judge has referred to a decision reported in (1996) 7 SCC 118 (State of MP vs. Shyama Parrfhi), relied upon by the learned State counsel for the proposition that where the appointments were made in violation of statutory rules, such appointments could be cancelled and there was no question of violation of principles of natural justice. We do not think that it would be necessary to go-any further into this aspect of the matter since all the appellants have been heard in appeal and they have put forward their cases before us. Perhaps it may not be possible for any one to contend that appointments made outside the select list or in violation of the merit position contained in the select list could be sustained. The contention of the appellants, however, is that the orders passed by the departmental authorities in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions as referred d to by the learned Single Judge could cover only those appointments which were made/not made in accordance with the selection held in pursuance of advertisement dated 3.9.91. The said selection would not cover appointments on the posts which were not subject matter of the selection in question. In some of the appeals it has been indicated that posts upon which the appellants have been working were created/sanctioned after the date of advertisement. In some of e the cases the appointments were made in pursuance of the directions issued by the Court and in one case the appointment as was challenged was upheld. In some of the appeals it has been indicated that posts upon which the appellants have been working were created/sanctioned after the date of advertisement. In some of e the cases the appointments were made in pursuance of the directions issued by the Court and in one case the appointment as was challenged was upheld. It is, therefore, submitted that in respect of the cases falling in the above categories, -the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not be applicable. 5. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the recruitment is made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Rule 6 provides for direct recruitment of teachers in different cadres; whereas recruitment to the posts of Headmaster, Superintendent or Vice Principal in Grade II cadre and the posts in Grade IQ cadre of the services are to be made by promotion. In the present case regarding recruitment to the posts of teachers, direct recruitment is to be made. Rule 7 provides for direct recruitment. The relevant part of the Rule 7 is quoted below: ' “7. Direct recruitment (1) Direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of the recommendation made by the State Level Selection Board in the case of Post Graduate Teachers and the District Level Selection Board in all other cases in me manner hereinafter provided: (a) Before the end of each year the appointing authority shall make a school wise assessment of the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment during the next year in different institutions and shall intimate the same to the Board together with the details of reservation of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or any other category as laid down by the Govt and shall furnish a list of the eligible serving teachers stating in details about the name of the institution where they are serving, the period of service rendered, grade of the service and the period spent therein and also the post for which they are eligible and all other particulars and information that may be considered necessary either by the appointing authority or by the Board. The appointing authority shall also furnish the relevant service records of such candidates to the Board. The appointing authority shall also furnish the relevant service records of such candidates to the Board. (b) (b) The appointing authority shall simultaneously request the Board to recommend a list of .candidates for direct recruitment in order of preference. (c) The Board shall make selection of candidates holding such test and interview and scrutiny of certificates, service records, if any, and other published articles etc, if any, published by the candidates, as may be considered necessary : Provided.... .... .... (d) 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. (e) The Board shall simultaneously publish the list in such places and in such manner as the Board may consider fit and proper. (f) The list mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) 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. (g) The Board shall furnish separate lists for separate cadres or posts as. may be required by the appointing authority and also state the name of the institution in case of serving teachers, for which the recommendation is made....” 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to the above Rules, before the end of each year, appointing authority has to make assessment of likely number of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment during the next year in different institutions and the said intimation is to be forwarded to, the Board/After due selection a select list is prepared on the basis of merit and the appointments are made accordingly. Our attention has also been drawn to clause (f) of Rule 7 (1) to indicate that the select list shall remain valid only for a period of one year. It is, therefore, submitted that the advertisement dated 3.9.91 could only be in respect of the existing vacancies or, vacancies which were likely to fall during the year. Therefore, any post which is created or sanctioned after the advertisement obviously cannot be said to be a post covered by the advertisement in respect of which selection was held and select list was prepared. Therefore, any post which is created or sanctioned after the advertisement obviously cannot be said to be a post covered by the advertisement in respect of which selection was held and select list was prepared. Such vacancies or posts created or sanctioned after the advertisement was made, would obviously be filled up in the next selection or by any other arrangement made, as may be permissible under the law. In a particular advertisement, existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to occur during the year, as may be assessed, could alone be included. 7. We may now examine the position of individual appellants in different appeals who have been served with notice of termination/cancellation of appointment. . In Writ Appeal No. 500 of 1997, the case of the appellants is that they had been appointed in the year 1992 against sanctioned posts of Graduate Teacher in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,375-3,375 per month plus other allowances by Govt order dated 16.11.91. Copies of the orders of the Director of Secondary Education passed in reference to the order of the Govt have been filed as Annexure A to the writ appeal. The appointments were made on ad hoc basis in 1992 and it is further submitted that their services were regularised on 9.10.96. In Writ Appeal No. 510 of 1997, it is submitted that the appellant Nos 1 to 4 were at Serial Nos 33,31,50 and 59 respectively in the select list. Out of the said appellants, it is submitted that the appointment of appellant No. 1 was challenged, but the same was upheld in Civil Rule No. 423 of 1996. The appellant Nos 2 and 3 are also said to have been directed to be appointed under the orders of the Court. The appellants were not parties in the petitions disposed of by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appointments of such appellants which have been made in pursuance of the orders passed by the Court or whose appointment on being challenged has been upheld by the Court, such appointments could not be cancelled unless and until the orders operating in favour of such appellants are set aside. It is submitted that the appointments of such appellants which have been made in pursuance of the orders passed by the Court or whose appointment on being challenged has been upheld by the Court, such appointments could not be cancelled unless and until the orders operating in favour of such appellants are set aside. Shri GK Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 198 (Bihar Public Service Commission & another vs. State of Bihar & others) in support of the contention that even where on the basis of the report of a committee it was found that there were irregularities in holding the selection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refrained from interfering in the appointments made in pursuance of the Court orders. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case in hand is not one in which any irregularity may have been found in the selection process as a result of which the selection may have been cancelled, so consequently the appointments as well. On the other hand, there is no grievance against the selection, but the grievance is about the individual appointments to the effect that some of the appointees do not find place in the select list and some of them have been appointed ignoring the candidates above them in the merit list. It is vehemently urged and in our view having some force that the persons whose appointments were thought to be invalid for the reasons indicated above would obviously be persons identified. Therefore, such persons, it is submitted, should have been impleaded as parties in the writ petition and they should have been afforded opportunity of hearing. We find that it is not a case of defect of general nature in holding the selection. Select lists have not been challenged, nor all the appointments made in pursuance of the selection, but some appointments of those who were not in the list or down in the list ignoring the candidates holding higher position. This kind of grievance would obviously be directed against the individuals. In Writ Appeal No. 529 of 1997, it is submitted that the appointments of the appellants have no concern whatsoever with the selection held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 3.9.91 or the select list prepared and published on 4.1.95. This kind of grievance would obviously be directed against the individuals. In Writ Appeal No. 529 of 1997, it is submitted that the appointments of the appellants have no concern whatsoever with the selection held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 3.9.91 or the select list prepared and published on 4.1.95. The appellant No.l is said to have been appointed on 23.3.94 on ad hoc basis in Intermediate scale. The said post was upgraded converted into Graduate teacher on 29.4,95 that is to say after the advertisement was made and select list was published. It would be thus a case where the post has been created even after the select list was published. The post which is being held by the appellant No.1 by no means can be said to be covered by the selection in question. Appellant No. 2 was appointed on 26.5.94 as Assistant teacher in Graduate scale against a post created oh 16.11.91 that is to say after the advertisement was issued. A copy of the initial appointment indicating the day on which the post was sanctioned, namely, 16.11.91 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the memorandum of appeal and Annexure 5 is the copy of the order by which the post was further extended. Same is the position in so far it relates to the appellant No. 3. It is no doubt true that the appellants had also appeared for selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 3.9.91 and the position of the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 in the select list was 43, 70 and 64 respectively. It is, however, submitted that their appointments were made independent of the select list prior to its publication against the posts sanctioned on 16.11.91 after the advertisement was made. Therefore, the posts against which the three appellants have been working cannot be said to be covered by the selection in regard to 300 teachers whose posts were advertised on 3.9.91. The submission is that these posts could not be included in the advertisement dated 3.9.91 as they were neither the existing vacancies nor the vacancies which were likely to fall vacant. The very sanction of the posts itself was subsequent to the advertisement. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319 (Prem Singh & others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & others). The very sanction of the posts itself was subsequent to the advertisement. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319 (Prem Singh & others vs. Haryana State Electricity Board & others). Our attention has particularly been drawn to paragraph 25 of the decision where it has been observed as follows : “From the above discussion of the case law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies...” It has further been observed that the State cannot give appointment in excess of the posts advertised except in exceptional circumstances or to meet any emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision on that behalf. On the basis of the above decision it has been submitted that the posts which were sanctioned on 16.11.91 that is after the advertisement could not fall within anticipated vacancies, they would rather fall in the category of future vacancies. Such posts could not be the subject matter of the selection in question. Therefore, the select list will have no bearing on the future posts, namely, the posts which were sanctioned after the advertisement, nor the appointments on such subsequently sanctioned/created posts would in any manner be affected by selection and the select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement of an anterior date. It is further submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the respondents had included such subsequently .sanctioned posts as anticipated vacancies while making the advertisement for recruitment of in all 300 teachers. In Writ Appeal No. 652 of 1997 there is only one appellant. He was at Serial No. 40 of the select list. The appointment was made on January 20, 1996. It is submitted that the appointment of the appellant is not on the basis of select list. Since statutorily its validity had expired on 5.1.96. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has held that the validity of the select list could not be extended. The grievance of the appellant is that the petition was heard and decided without a affording him any opportunity. In Writ Appeal No. 538 of 1997 the appellant Smti Manju Talukdar was given first appointment as against a vacancy on January 30,1996. The grievance of the appellant is that the petition was heard and decided without a affording him any opportunity. In Writ Appeal No. 538 of 1997 the appellant Smti Manju Talukdar was given first appointment as against a vacancy on January 30,1996. A copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure A to the memorandum of appeal. The appointment was later on continued by order dated 1.3.96. The appellant was a , party in Civil Rule Nos. 2835 of 1996, but the matter was decided before she could file her affidavit-in-opposition. It is submitted that her appointment was made on the date indicated above against a vacancy which fell vacant on account of retirement of her father. It is submitted that by no stretch of imagination this vacancy which caused much after the advertisement and the select list could be considered to be a subject-matter of the selection. This vacancy could not be included in the selection either by way of existing or anticipated vacancy, hence, no direction could be given for cancelling the appointment of the appellant on the basis of the selection held against the advertisement dated 3.9.91 and subsequent select list published on 4.1.95. In Writ Appeal No. 598 of 1997, appellant No, 1 was appointed on January 20,1996 and appellant N6-.2 on April 19,1996. Their respective position in the select list was 46 and 66. So far appellant No. 3 is concerned, he was appointed on April 4,1994 and his position in the select list was 21, In respect of appointment of appellant No. 1 it is submitted that was after the validity of the select list had expired and the other appointments were before publication of the select list, hence the appointments of the appellants cannot be related to the select list. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge would not be applicable to the appellants. 8. Looking to the points raised and the facts indicated in different writ appeals, it is found that the cases fall mainly in two categories, first, where the cases of the appellants is that they have been appointed in pursuance of the order passed by the Court or appointment on being challenged was upheld in the writ proceeding. Second category of cases is where the posts against which the appellants are working were not subject matter of the selection in question. Second category of cases is where the posts against which the appellants are working were not subject matter of the selection in question. A perusal of the Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules, 1982 clearly indicates that assessment of existing and anticipated vacancies is to be made for a particular year and to fill up such number of vacancies as assessed, advertisement is to be issued. Therefore, the vacancies which came into existence after the advertisement was made namely, the posts which were sanctioned or created or upgraded after the date of advertisement would not be covered by the advertisement dated 3.9.91 advertising 200 vacancies of .Assistant teacher and 100 vacancies of Language teacher. Future vacancies cannot be filled up from the select list prepared in respect of the existing and anticipated vacancies. 9. Undisputedly, barring one or two appellants, none were impleaded as parties in any of the writ petitions, nor they were heard. Notices for termination of their services were issued and served upon the appellants in pursuance of the impugned judgment. Having felt adversely affected by the impugned judgment as they preferred the appeals. It is only at the appellate stage that they have stated their cases in their memorandum of appeal. Such facts need verification and on verification if they are found correct, appropriate orders have accordingly to be passed by the authorities in individual cases regarding the notices of cancellation of appointments served upon them. It has already been indicated above that those whose appointments have been made in pursuance of the orders of the Court or upheld by the Court, their appointments cannot be cancelled so long those judicial orders remain operative. The posts which came into existence after the date of advertisement amounting to future vacancies, such appointments would also not be affected by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Only those appointments against the vacancies which were included and covered by the advertisement dated 3.9.91 would be considered for cancellation, if made against the select list, namely, if the appointees were not in the list or their appointments were made ignoring the candidates better in merit in the select list. 10. Only those appointments against the vacancies which were included and covered by the advertisement dated 3.9.91 would be considered for cancellation, if made against the select list, namely, if the appointees were not in the list or their appointments were made ignoring the candidates better in merit in the select list. 10. In view of the discussions held above, we finally dispose of all the appeals providing that the appellants shall show cause to the notice served upon them for cancellation/termination of their appointments to the appropriate authority, namely, the authority issuing the notice within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today furnishing relevant material to the authority concerned in support of their cases. The authority concerned shall examine the cases of the appellants in the light of the observations and directions contained in this judgment and they shall pass appropriate orders within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the reply to the show cause notice by the appellants. There would be no order as to costs.