JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ applica¬tion prays for a direction to the Opposite party No.1 to appoint him in the post of Library Attendant in the Orissa Legislative Assembly. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Seasonal employee in the Secretariat of Orissa Legislative Assem¬bly and had 500 days of experience. In the year 1991 the Secre¬tariat of Orissa Legislative Assembly requested the Bhubaneswar Employment Exchange to sponsor names of bona fide candidates to fill up newly created post of Library Attendant and the said post was treated as unreserved one. A Selection Committee was consti¬tuted to conduct interview and pursuant to the requisition made, the Bhubaneswar Employment Exchange sponsored twenty general category candidates. Apart from the above twenty candidates, three persons including the petitioner who had minimum 500 days of experience as seasonal Class IV employees were also nominated for the interview. Another peon Krushna Chandra Mohapatra working in the Legislative Assembly had also been nominated for inter¬view. Out of the twenty four candidates including the petitioner fifteen turned up for the interview. The Selection Committee formed a scheme for allotting 15 marks towards career and 5 marks for personality. The 15 marks allotted for career depended on the division one has got in Matriculation which was treated as basic qualification for appointment. It was decided to award 15 marks for the candidate obtaining Ist Division, 10 marks obtaining IInd Division and 5 marks obtaining IIIrd Division. None of the candi¬dates sponsored by the Employment Exchange who attended the interview had secured Ist Division or IInd Division in the Ma¬triculation Examination. Out of the other nominated four candi¬dates, the petitioner and one Purna Chandra Muduli had only obtained IInd Division in Matriculation and the other two had got IIIrd Division. Therefore, the petitioner and Purna Chandra Muduli obtained 10 marks each in career marking. In the personal¬ity test the petitioner was awarded highest marks by the Selec¬tion Committee and he stood first in the interview. The Selection Committee having found the petitioner in first position recom¬mended his name for appointment as Library Attendant. After such recommendation, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain documents which were supplied by the petitioner. In the personal¬ity test the petitioner was awarded highest marks by the Selec¬tion Committee and he stood first in the interview. The Selection Committee having found the petitioner in first position recom¬mended his name for appointment as Library Attendant. After such recommendation, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain documents which were supplied by the petitioner. In spite of the formalities being complete, no appointment order was issued and after a considerable length of time elapsed, it was suddenly found that opposite party No.2 had been appointed on ad hoc basis treating the post as reserved one. The petitioner challenging the appointment order had filed this writ application on the ground that the Selection Committee having recommended his name for appointment against the post and the post being unreserved all through, the appointment order should be issued in his favour. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No.1 wherein the selection of the petitioner is not in dispute, but it is stated that the recommendation of the Selec¬tion Committee was cancelled by the order of the Speaker on 21.9.1993 on the ground that there has been long delay in taking a decision by the Selection Committee and that the post was reserved for women candidate as per resolution policy of the State Government dated 23.12.92 issued by the General Administra¬tion Department and accordingly the Opposite party No.2 was given ad hoc appointment on 45 days basis. 4. The leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner chal¬lenges the action of the opposite party No.2. in reserving the post on the ground that since it was the Ist post in that calen¬dar year, the same could not have been reserved and, therefore, at the beginning the Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar had recom¬mended twenty candidates belonging to the general category. The learned counsel further submitted that cancelling the recommenda¬tion of the Selection Committee and appointing a woman candidate in the post treating the same as reserved one only indicates mala fide. The learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party No.1, on the other hand, referring to the documents attached to the additional affidavit filed on 29.8.2001 submitted that the deci¬sion was taken by the Speaker and, therefore, the same was car¬ried out. The learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party No.1, on the other hand, referring to the documents attached to the additional affidavit filed on 29.8.2001 submitted that the deci¬sion was taken by the Speaker and, therefore, the same was car¬ried out. According to the learned counsel, since there was delay in acting upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Speaker decided to appoint a woman against the post on temporary basis treating the same as reserved one. 5. There is no dispute that the post of Library Attendant was filled up and names were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange and there is also no dispute that four other candidates who were working as seasonal Class IV employees and had worked for 500 days been nominated for the purpose of interview. There is also no dispute that the petitioner had been recommended by the Selection Committee for such appointment. The question that arises for consideration is whether mere recommendation or selec¬tion of the petitioner for appointment to the post gives any right to seek for a direction for appointment to that post. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties fairly submitted that no such right accruse merely because the petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment. It is open for the employer to either appoint or dispense with any such appointment. Moreover, in this case as it appears from the additional affida¬vit and the documents attached there to that even though the interview was conducted towards the end of 1991, no appointment had been made till the decision was taken by the Speaker in Au¬gust, 1993. The post having not been filled up for near about two years we do not find any fault with the observation of the Speak¬er stating that in view of long delay in filling up the post, the recommendation of the Selection Committee should be cancelled. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to appointment of opposite party No.2 treating the post as reserved one, deserves consideration. From the office note dated 28.8.1993 it appears that a decision was required to be taken, if the said post of Library Attendant could be reserved for a woman candidate in view of the reservation policy of the Government. From the office note dated 28.8.1993 it appears that a decision was required to be taken, if the said post of Library Attendant could be reserved for a woman candidate in view of the reservation policy of the Government. Thus, it appears to be a query but the decision which is stated to have been taken has not been filed by the opposite party No.1. However, acting on such a decision the opposite party No.2 was appointed on temporary basis for some time. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to another document which is Annexure-2 to the additional affidavit indicat¬ing appointment of one Narendra Kumar Kar against the post on temporary basis. The appointment of Narendra Kumar Kar on 17th July, 1998 itself shows that no decision had been taken by the opposite party No.1 to treat the post of Library Attendant as reserved one for women candidates, otherwise a male candidate could not have been appointed after departure of opposite party No.2. We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said post has not been treated as reserved one at any point of time. From the appointment order of Narendra Kumar Kar, it appears that such appointment has been made on temporary basis until this writ application is disposed of. In view of our observation made above, we dispose of the writ application with the following directions :- (1) The opposite party No.1 may consider filling up the post on permanent basis and in case a decision is taken to fill up the post on permanent basis, the opposite party No.1 shall take decision as to whether he would act upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee made in the year 1991 or not. (2) If a decision is taken to act upon the decision of the Selection Committee made in the year 1991, the appointment of any person as per such recommendation shall be made and over age will not stand on the way of opposite party No.1 for appointing such person who had been recommended by the Selection Committee in the year 1991. (3) In the event opposite party No.1 decides not to act upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee of 1991, the post shall be filled up in accordance with law by open competi¬tion. (3) In the event opposite party No.1 decides not to act upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee of 1991, the post shall be filled up in accordance with law by open competi¬tion. If open competition is held, the petitioner shall be given a chance to compete and overage so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall not stand on the way. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Application disposed of.