JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. FACTS 1. The Appellant as the writ Petitioner filed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 643/1990 renumbered as Civil Rule No. 43/1992 assailing the legality and validity of the orders containing the decision to cancel his adhoc appointment as Personal Assistant (PA) to the Chairman of the Respondent Board. A further prayer was made to regularise his service as PA to the Chairman. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 25.3.1974. In 1977 the post of PA to the General Manager redesignated as Managing Director had fallen vacant and as no suitable candidate for the post could be found, the General Manager by his order dated 23.4.1977 directed the Petitioner to take charge of the said post in addition to his own duties as UDC and the Petitioner did so. Sometime in June 1978, the Board in its 54th meeting resolved to fill up the post of PA through selection and for the purpose invited applications through employment exchange. The Board also fixed the Minimum Education qualification as graduate or equivalent with 5 years experience. 3. The Petitioner being eligible for the post duly appeared before the Selection Board on 20.11.78 on being sponsored by the employment exchange. According to the Petitioner from amongst the 14 candidates, he was found to be the only suitable candidate. Thereafter, necessary proposal was sent for appointment of the Petitioner and pending materialisation of such proposal by way of appointment of the Petitioner as PA to General Manager, the Petitioner continued with his additional duty of the post of PA. However, the appointment of the Petitioner was not materialised and in the meantime the post of General Manager was re-designated as Managing Director by upgrading the same. 4. When the matter rested as above, by an order dated 6.11.1986, the Petitioner was promoted to the next higher grade of Head clerk, but was allowed to function as PA to the Managing Director. The Petitioner assumed charge of the post of Head clerk by submitting joining report on 6.11.86. In the joining report, the Petitioner reserved his right to pursue his claim on the basis of the notice he had served demanding justice. The Petitioner assumed charge of the post of Head clerk by submitting joining report on 6.11.86. In the joining report, the Petitioner reserved his right to pursue his claim on the basis of the notice he had served demanding justice. By yet another order dated 28.5.1988, the Petitioner was appointed as PA to the Chairman on adhoc basis and he continued on that basis till 5.3.1990 when the first impugned communication dated 5.3.1990 (Annexure-5) was issued by the Government of Tripura in the Transport Department to the Managing Director of the Corporation conveying the decision of the Government for cancellation of the adhoc appointment of the Petitioner as PA to the Chairman. 5. The aforesaid communication dated 5.3.1990 was followed by Annexure-6, 7 and 8 communication dated 6.3.1990, 8.3.1990 and 21.3.1990 directing the Corporation to take necessary follow up action in the matter of cancellation of adhoc appointment of the Petitioner as PA to the Chairman. In the writ petition, the Petitioner assailed the legality and validity of the said communications with a further prayer to regularise his service as PA to the Chairman. 6. The Respondents in their counter affidavit denied the contention raised in the writ petition. However, they admitted the factual aspect of the matter. In the affidavit, the Respondents indicated that in the year 1978 when the interview for the post of PA of General Manager was held, there was no recruitment rule governing the appointment, promotion etc. to the post of PA. However, the recruitment Rule was framed in 1986 and as per the provisions of the rules, the post of PA to General Manager (re-designated as Managing Director) is a promotional post, failing which to be filed up by direct recruitment. The feeder post for promotion is stenographer with 5 years experience in the grade. 7. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents have also highlighted that no decision was taken in respect of the selection conducted for the post of PA to Chairman and in the meantime the 1986 rules came into force. It was the stand of the Respondents that the plea of the Petitioner that he was denied substantial appointment to the post of PA was not tenable as no select list was published and also that the Petitioner was never informed that he had been selected. It was the stand of the Respondents that the plea of the Petitioner that he was denied substantial appointment to the post of PA was not tenable as no select list was published and also that the Petitioner was never informed that he had been selected. Thus, the basic stand in the counter affidavit was that, as per the recruitment rules the post of PA to General Manager (GM) being a promotional post from amongst the stenographers with requisite experience, the Petitioner was not entitled to be promoted and that too without any selection. So far as the 1978 selection is concerned, it was their stand that the same had spent its force and could not be revived after so many years. As regards the plea of the Petitioner that the Government could not have issued direction for cancellation of adhoc appointment of the Petitioner, it was the sand of the Respondents that the corporation being under the deep and pervasive control of the Government, there was nothing wrong in issuing such directions. DECISION ON THE WRIT PETITION 8. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.1999, apart from setting aside and quashing the impugned communications also issued a direction to consider the case of the Petitioner for regular appointment to the post of PA to Managing Director (MD) in accordance with the rules, if any, existed prior to the 1986 Recruitment Rules in accordance with the terms and conditions of the notice placed to the employment exchange. Thus, in a nutshell the direction issued was to implement the 1978 selection in which the Petitioner, as per his claim was the lone selected candidate. THE WRIT APPEAL 9. The instant appeal has been filed by the Respondent in the writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. While admitting the writ appeal, the impugned judgment and order was stayed and consequently, the cancellation of abhoc appointment of the Petitioner as PA to Chairman, which was under stay during the pendency of the writ petition became operative and it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that presently the Petitioner is holding the post of Head clerk. 10. 10. According to the Appellants, there could not have been any direction as contained in the impugned judgment and order to consider the case of the Petitioner in respect of a selection held in 1978 i.e. about 21 years back from the date of the judgment. Further contention raised in the appeal is that the post of PA to MD having been filled up in 1988 in terms of the Recruitment Rules of 1986, there could not have been a direction to consider the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the 1978 selection which in any case became redundant after the 1988 selection. Further contention raised in the appeal is that there being no post of PA to Chairman and even in case of availability of the same, the Petitioner being not eligible for appointment as PA as per the Recruitment Rules of 1986, no direction could have been issued to consider his case and that too on the basis of a selection conducted 21 years back. As regards the adhoc appointment of the Petitioner/Respondent , it is the stand of the Appellants that such adhoc appointment did not vest the Petitioner with any right and in any case such adhoc appointment cannot be constituted indefinitely. DECISION 11. We have heard Mr. T.K. Roy, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.C. Debnath learned Counsel for the Appellants. We have also heard Mr. K.N. Bhattachaijee, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 12. There is no dispute that the Petitioner while holding the post of UDC was allowed to look after the post of PA to the GM/MD in addition to his own duties. Thus, there was no absolute independent charge of the post of PA. By order dated 6.11.1986, the Petitioner was promoted as Head clerk in his own channel of promotion which he accepted by submitting joining report on 6.11.1986. It is true that in his joining report he had indicated reservation of his right to pursue his claim. Thereafter, he also accepted his adhoc appointment as PA to the Chairman. In the meantime, one Sri Biswa Ranjan Choudhury, Stenographer was promoted to the post of PA to GM/MD. The Petitioner himself admits this position, which will be evident from his representation annexed to the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure-1. Thereafter, he also accepted his adhoc appointment as PA to the Chairman. In the meantime, one Sri Biswa Ranjan Choudhury, Stenographer was promoted to the post of PA to GM/MD. The Petitioner himself admits this position, which will be evident from his representation annexed to the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure-1. The representation was submitted on 5.12.1987 when there was a move for promotion to the post of PA to MD. Thus, apart from abandoning the selection of 1978, which even otherwise also spent its force by efflux of time, also became otiose and redundant with the selection held in 1988 pursuant to which said Sri Choudhury was promoted. At the time of issuing the direction as contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.1999, the post of PA to MD was not available and consequently, there could not have any occasion to consider the case of the Petitioner. 13. As noticed above, the selection in question was conducted in 1978 and till filing of the writ petition in April 1990, long 12 years had elapsed. In between the Petitioner was promoted in his usual channel of promotion as Head clerk. He was also appointed as PA to the Chairman on adhoc basis. The post of PA to GM/MD was filled up in 1988. Thus after allowing all those things to happen, the Petitioner suddenly woke up from his slumber on the face of the impugned Annexure-5, 6, 7 and 8 communications by which the decision to cancel his adhoc appointment was conveyed. Although in the writ petition, the Petitioner incidentally referred to the alleged injustice meted out to him by not appointing him as PA to the GM/MD pursuant to his selection 1978, the basic grievance raised in the writ petition was in respect, of the aforesaid impugned communications. 14. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the post of PA to GM/MD for which the Petitioner claimed to have been selected was no longer in existence. With the selection conducted in 1988 for the said post, the earlier selection of 1978 which even otherwise also did not attain its finality, became redundant. Even if there is any post of PA to Chairman or Vice-chairman, same will necessarily have to be filled up in due compliance of the Recruitment Rules of 1986 in terms of which the Petitioner is not eligible for consideration of his case. Even if there is any post of PA to Chairman or Vice-chairman, same will necessarily have to be filled up in due compliance of the Recruitment Rules of 1986 in terms of which the Petitioner is not eligible for consideration of his case. In such a situation, there is no question of regularising the services of the Petitioner as PA to the Chairman. No direction can be issued to the Respondents/Appellants to violate the Recruitment Rules. 15. As regards the impugned decision to cancel the adhoc appointment of the Petitioner as PA to Chairman, suffice is to say that such adhoc appointment did not confer any indefeasible right on the Petitioner. In any case, such adhoc appointment, if not continued indefinitely, no fault or motive can be attributed to the Respondents/Appellants. With the stay order passed by this Court while admitting the writ appeal on 2.8.1999, the Petitioner is no longer holding the post of PA to Chairman and presently, he is holding the post of Head clerk. This position cannot be altered which will also lead to violation of the Recruitment Rules. If the Petitioner is not eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of PA to Chairman, he is also not entitled for appointment/promotion as such even on adhoc basis. 16. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: AIR 2000 SC 2306 State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh AIR 1989 SC 1809 Corporation of City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah AIR 1986 SC 180 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 2005 SC 1579 Secy, to the Govt. v. M. Senthil Kumar. 17. The first decision is in respect of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to mould the relief. In that case, the Supreme Court having regard to benefits conferred on the basis of judicial pronouncements, issued appropriate direction to do complete justice. There is no dispute relating to such power of the Apex Court. However, the Writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot travel beyond the facts and the law so glaring and staring on the face of it in the instant case. There is no dispute relating to such power of the Apex Court. However, the Writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot travel beyond the facts and the law so glaring and staring on the face of it in the instant case. Any relief to the Petitioner on the analogy of moulding relief will be contrary to the factual and legal aspect of the matter. On the same basis the decision in M. Papaiah (supra) is also of no help to the case of the writ Petitioner. 18. The decision in Olga Tellis (supra) has been pressed into service to emphasise that the plea of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence operating against the Petitioner is not tenable. This decision is also of no help to the case of the writ Petitioner. The decision in M. Senthil Kumar (supra) has also been pressed into service to put emphasise on the same principle. However, in view of our discussions and finding recorded above, this case also could not persuade us to take a different view. 19. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 29.4.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 43/1992 is not sustainable and liable to be interfered, which we accordingly do by way of setting aside and quashing the same. 20. The writ appeal succeeds. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.