JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Really speaking, nothing survives to be decided in this batch of writ petitions, having regard to the nature of appointment made in favour of the Petitioners, in respect of which the action of the Respondents has been put to challenge. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners insisted for detail hearing, for, according to them, had the impugned action of the Respondents been not there, in due course the nature of appointment made in their favour would have been changed and in the process they would have continued in their services. 2. The matter relates to appointment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. Be it stated here that there are two wings of the Directorate of Health Services which are Directorate of Health Services and Directorate of Health Services (Family Welfare). All the writ petitions being on the same issue, based on the same set of facts, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. BASIC FACTS 3. The Petitioners are trained ANM and are registered under the Assam Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Council. They are qualified for appointment as ANM under the Respondents. The Petitioners approached the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director of Health Services for appointment as ANM. Strangely enough, the Petitioners have not mentioned anything about any advertisement for appointment, which is the basic requirement for any Government employment. According to the Petitioners, the Government cleared 200 vacancies of ANM and the Petitioners having applied for such posts were called to appear in an interview to be conducted by the Respondents. Some of the call letters dated 30.10.2003 have been annexed to the writ petitions in terms of which the Petitioners were required to appear before the Selection Committee for interview during November-December, 2004. Be it stated here that the interview was conducted on different dates for different candidates. 4. According to the Petitioners they appeared in the interview and did very well. However, it is an admitted position that no select list was published incorporating the names of the Petitioners in order of preference/merit so as to call them to be selected candidates. Be it stated here that the interview was conducted on different dates for different candidates. 4. According to the Petitioners they appeared in the interview and did very well. However, it is an admitted position that no select list was published incorporating the names of the Petitioners in order of preference/merit so as to call them to be selected candidates. But it is the case of the Petitioners, that the select list was forwarded by the Directorate of Health Services to the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare Department, by his letter dated 24.02.2004 intimating that he has received a list of candidates for appointment as ANM from his part with approval of the Minister of Health & Family Welfare, Assam. By the said letter, a request was made to approve the list for taking necessary action on his part. The Petitioners assert that the list was approved by the Secretary as would be evident from the endorsement on the body of the letter. Interestingly, the purported endorsement of the Secretary is of the same date i.e. 24.02.2004. 5. The further case of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department after according necessary approval etc. forwarded the list to the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director of Health Services to make necessary appointment under his establishment/control. In the list the names of the Petitioner appeared. The list contained 133 names. Although the Petitioners have stated that the list was forwarded by the Secretary to the Directorate of Health Services, in the Annexure-V list, there is no indication as such and the list abruptly comes to an end at serial No. 133 without bearing any signature of any authority so as to call it a select list. In fact, none of the pages of the purported select list contains any signature and/or endorsement of any authority. 6. The Petitioners were appointed as ANM by various orders issued in the month of May, 2004 and the appointment orders were issued by the then Director of Health Services, Assam, Dr. H.N. Doley. The appointments were stated to be for only three months and there was no indication that such appointments were pursuant to any selection. 6. The Petitioners were appointed as ANM by various orders issued in the month of May, 2004 and the appointment orders were issued by the then Director of Health Services, Assam, Dr. H.N. Doley. The appointments were stated to be for only three months and there was no indication that such appointments were pursuant to any selection. Even otherwise also, had it been a case of appointment pursuant to regular selection, in the normal circumstances, the appointments could not have been limiting the same to only three months. It is in this circumstance, on being pointed out during the course-of hearing that the very appointments having spent its force with the expiry of stipulated period of three months the writ petitions have become infructuous, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners insisted for a detail hearing since according to them such temporary appointment would have culminated to regular appointment in due course. 7. Before the appointments of the Petitioners could be materialized, and before the Petitioners could join their posts, the Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare Department issued two WT messages both dated 15.05.2004 directing the authorities not to allow the Petitioners to join their respective posts. The WT messages annexed to the writ petitions read as follows: No. HLA 1620/2003/14, Dtd. 15.5.2004 (.) Reports/Complaints have been Received by the government that a large number of appointment letters have been issued appointing new anms by the DHS on 7.5.2004 and other dates and handed over to the appointees for despatch otherwise for joining in their respective districts (.) Govt. has taken it very seriously and decided not to allow joining of such persons as anms untill further communications as such you are instructed not to accept and allow any appointment letter produces for joining as anms (.) This should be strictly enforce and communicate the action taken by you at the earliest. * * * No. HLA.430/2004/4 Dated 15.5.2004 (Stop) Please Refer to WT message of date communicated vide No. HLA. * * * No. HLA.430/2004/4 Dated 15.5.2004 (Stop) Please Refer to WT message of date communicated vide No. HLA. 1620/2003/14 (Stop) please ensure that any person with fresh appointment letter issued by director of health service for any category of posts is not allowed to join until specific instructions are received from the state government (stop) please issue necessary instruction to officer incharge of all health institutions in your District including additional CM&HO and CM&HO (Stop) the matter may be treated as extremely serious and prompt action should be taken (Stop) Para (Stop) for debcom only (Stop) this has a reference to WT message No. HLA.430/2004/3 Dated 15.5.2004 (Stop) 8. While the first WT Message was issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health & Family Welfare Department, the second WT Message was issued by the Commissioner & Secretary of the Department addressing the same to all departmental authorities, Deputy Commissioners of the district, departmental Minister and other authorities. 9. It is the aforesaid facts which have led to the spurt of filing the writ petitions challenging the legality and validity of the action of the Respondents in not allowing the Petitioners to join the posts of ANM. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 10. The Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and their basic stand is that the then Director of Health Services resorted to illegal appointments by way of appointing the Petitioners on pick and choose basis. The contentions raised by them are indicated below. 11. As many as 310 vacancies of ANM had arisen in 2003, out of which 281 posts were for the wing of Director of Health Services (FW) and 30 for the other wing of Director of Health Services. The Director of Health Services (FW) by his letter dated 30.10.2003 requested the State Government to accord approval of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC) for appointment of 281 ANM. The Government obtained the approval and the same was communicated to the DHS (FW) by letter dated 31.12.2003. So far as the 30 posts under the other wing i.e. the DHS, there was no approval and/or clearance of the SLEC. 12. For recruitment to the aforesaid 281 posts of ANM, the Government constitute a Selection Committee vide notification dated 18.08.2003 which comprised of the following members. DHS (FW), Assam-Chairman Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare-Member Joint DHS (FW)-Member Deputy DHS-Member Secretary 13. 12. For recruitment to the aforesaid 281 posts of ANM, the Government constitute a Selection Committee vide notification dated 18.08.2003 which comprised of the following members. DHS (FW), Assam-Chairman Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare-Member Joint DHS (FW)-Member Deputy DHS-Member Secretary 13. After constitution of Selection Committee as aforesaid, the DHS (FW), Assam issued advertisement dated 18.08.2003 inviting applications from the eligible female candidates for appointment as ANM in the health institution of rural areas of Assam. In response to such advertisement, approximately 4000 candidates offered their candidatures. The Selection Committee decided to conduct the interview and accordingly, notices were issued on 27.10.2003, 31.10.2003 and 21.11.2003 intimating the date, time and venue of interview and the same were also published in the leading newspapers of the State. In addition, individual call letters were also sent. 14. About 3440 candidates appeared in the selection conducted between 03.11.2003 to 10.12.2003. Thereafter, the select list was prepared which contained 620 names of selected candidates. The select list bearing the signatures of the Chairman and other Members was forwarded to the Government for approval vide letter dated 22.03.2004 issued by the DHS (FW). The approval of the Government is still awaited. The approval could not be accorded since in the meantime, the election process for parliamentary election was initiated and the model code of conduct came into force. 15. The Respondents have contended that the list annexed to the writ petition is not a select list and certainly not the one prepared by the aforesaid Selection Committee. It is the categorical stand of the Respondents that there was no clearance of the SLEC in respect of the 30 posts of ANM for the DHS wing and there was also no advertisement and selection for the same. Thus, there is no question of preparation of any select list. They have pointed out as to how the purported select list annexed to the writ petition does not bear any signature of any member. 16. The further stand of the Respondents is that the DHS was authorized to appoint only 30 ANMs as was earmarked for the said wing and thus had no authority to appoint 281 ANM meant for the other wing i.e. DHS (FW). 16. The further stand of the Respondents is that the DHS was authorized to appoint only 30 ANMs as was earmarked for the said wing and thus had no authority to appoint 281 ANM meant for the other wing i.e. DHS (FW). It has also been pointed out that the appointments being only for three months, by their very nature were adhoc and even such adhoc appointment could not have been made by the DHS in view of ban imposed by the Government for such adhoc appointment. Thus, the Respondents have contended that the entire action of the then DHS was illegal. 17. The Respondents have conducted an enquiry relating to the entire affair through the Inquiry Committee constituted for the purpose. The Inquiry Committee was constituted by order dated 18.05.2004 which comprised of the Joint Secretary of the Department, Director of Health Services and the Senior Financial Adviser of the Department. At the time of filing of the affidavit, the report of the Committee was not available and the same was not submitted, but during the course of hearing, the learned State Counsel produced the copy of the same for perusal of the Court. The enquiry report was forwarded to the government by letter dated 23.07.2004. Copies of the same have also been furnished to the learned counsel. 18. As per the enquiry report, it could not be ascertained as to who had prepared the list on the basis of which the appointments were made. Nothing about the list origination could be known. On the other hand, the regular list about which a mention has been made above, was sent to the Government in sealed cover. As per record there was no other Selection Board for selection of candidates and no separate advertisement was also made. The list on the basis of which the appointments were made has got nothing to do with the list formally prepared by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Besides, the then DHS Dr. Doley was not at all involved in the selection process. 19. The enquiry report has further revealed that the particular dealing assistant namely Sri Anil Barua, LDA stated before the Inquiry Committee that the list was handed over to him by Dr. Doley himself and that he was repeatedly insisted by the DHS to process the appointment. The report also reveals that the appointments were made by Dr. 19. The enquiry report has further revealed that the particular dealing assistant namely Sri Anil Barua, LDA stated before the Inquiry Committee that the list was handed over to him by Dr. Doley himself and that he was repeatedly insisted by the DHS to process the appointment. The report also reveals that the appointments were made by Dr. Doley in May, 2004, i.e. at a time when an interim order of this Court dated 13.01.2004 not to make any appointment to the post of ANM was in operation. The interim order was passed in W.P. (C) No. 283/2004. Thus, such appointments could not have been made by Dr. Doley. Further, as per the model code of conduct also the DHS Dr. Doley, could not have made the appointments. The report has pointed out that it is the DHS (FW), who is the appointing authority. However, the Government by its letter dated 12.02.2004 intimated that the appointments relating to the wing of DHS would be dealt with by the DHS only. By the said letter, the DHS was asked to inform about the vacancy position under his control, but the same was never intimated. Moreover, the DHS did not make the appointment following the procedure laid down in the Assam Nurses Services Rules, 1991. the report has also stated about the experience gathered that the DHS, Assam does not have clear picture on strength of ANM under its administrative control not to speak of vacancy position. 20. After the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Committee, it has been categorically observed in the report that the DHS issued the appointment orders on the basis of a list which has not been recommended by any Selection Board and the appointment orders were issued on pick and chose basis. The report further says that no transparency was maintained in the matter and even the Joint Director (Nursing) was not aware of the development. Other officers of the directorate were also kept in dark and no laid down procedure was followed. The only employee engaged for the job was said Sri Anil Barua, LDA (Nursing Section) who also revealed that he was repeatedly insisted by the DHS to issue the appointment orders. He however, did not put any initial in the appointment orders. Other officers of the directorate were also kept in dark and no laid down procedure was followed. The only employee engaged for the job was said Sri Anil Barua, LDA (Nursing Section) who also revealed that he was repeatedly insisted by the DHS to issue the appointment orders. He however, did not put any initial in the appointment orders. The committee has concluded that the appointment orders issued by the then Director were all in complete violation of the rules in force. 21. The Petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply have reiterated their stand in the writ petition. They have justified the action of the then DHS on the ground that the posts in question were under his administrative control. According to them, no separate selection was required and that after the selection as conducted by the Respondents, the list of selected candidates pertaining to the wing of DHS was sent to fill up the vacancies in the DHS wing. According to them the DHS was entitled to appoint 122 ANMs out of 281 vacancies. They have repeatedly harped upon the purported approval of the list by the Secretary of the Department. 22. I have heard the learned Counsel representing the Writ Petitioners led by Mr. AB Choudhury and Mr. KH Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel as well as Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel. I have also heard Mr. PK Musahary, learned Sr. Government Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions. AIR 1987 SC 454 : Ashok Kr. Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 162 : State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin (1990) 3 SCC 48 : Shainda Hasan v. State of U.P. (1981) 4 SCC 159 : Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan 23. The first question, which comes up for consideration is as to whether going by the nature of appointments made in favour of the Petitioners, the writ petitions survive for any decision on merit. As pointed out at the very beginning, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing were asked as to whether the writ petitions still survive, the duration of the very appointments having expired. Be it stated here that the Petitioners were appointed only for three months which has long expired. As pointed out at the very beginning, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing were asked as to whether the writ petitions still survive, the duration of the very appointments having expired. Be it stated here that the Petitioners were appointed only for three months which has long expired. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner insisted for hearing, because according to them they being selected candidates, their temporary appointments limiting of three months would have culminated to regular appointment, had there been no interference on the part of the Respondents. 24. If the Petitioners were appointed pursuant through regular selection as has been claimed by them, it is not understood as to why they were appointed only for three months. They having been appointed by orders issued in May, 2004, even if the appointments are held to be valid, with the expiry of stipulated period of three months for which the appointments were valid, the very appointments have already spent its force. Thus, even if the Petitioners succeed, they are not entitled to continue in their services, the duration of their appointments having expired in August, 2004 i.e. about two years back. 25. On a bare look at the purported select list, which has been annexed as Annexure-V, leaves no manner of doubt that the same is not a select list. It is not the case of the Petitioners that the list was forwarded alongwith the Annexure-IV letter dated 24.02.2004. The purported select list does not contain any signature of any of the member of the Selection Committee. In the normal circumstances, a select list definitely bears the signatures of the members of the Selection Committee or atleast the Chairman of the Committee. However, none of the pages of the select list bears any signature of any one. Even in the Annexure-IV letter dated 24.02.2004, there is no indication that the purported list was a select list. In Annexure-V purported select list although it has been said that the list of candidates has been approved as they are duly selected, but such endorsement cannot be accepted in absence of any identity of the maker of such endorsement. 26. The call letters issued for the interview are all from the office of the DHS (FW). If that be so, naturally same was pertaining to the posts of DHS (FW). 26. The call letters issued for the interview are all from the office of the DHS (FW). If that be so, naturally same was pertaining to the posts of DHS (FW). Although the Petitioners' claim that they were appointed for the other wing i.e. the DHS, it is not understood as to how that could be so, if the selection was conducted by the wing of DHS (FW). The Inquiry Committee conducted the detailed enquiry and in its report has clearly stated that the appointments were made illegally on pick and chose basis. The then DHS did everything all of his own in violation of all the norms of recruitment and the Petitioners being the beneficiaries of such illegalities cannot get any relief from the writ Court. 27. From the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the position which has emerged is that the DHS (FW) has conducted a regular selection and the select list has been sent to the Government for approval and the same is awaited. However, the other wing i.e. DHS is yet to conduct the selection pertaining to the 30 posts earmarked for the said wing. However, the then DHS somehow conceives the ill design to make the illegal appointments, taking advantage of the ongoing selection process. He in fact succeeded in his design and the Petitioners, but for the timely intervention of the Government would have succeeded to join the posts. 28. The decisions on which Mr. AB Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance are all misplaced. The decisions have been pressed into service to bring home the point of argument that even if the appointments are held to be illegal and/or dehorse the rules, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case exception can be made, in the instant case, no such case of making any exception has been made out. Further the constitution has, by Article 142 empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary; for denying complete justice in any case or matter pending before it" which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High court while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice. 29. The jurisdiction of the High court while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice. 29. In the case of J&K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan reported in (1994) 2 SCC 630 , the Apex Court was involved with the issue, whether the adhoc appointments of the Respondents were valid and whether it was permissible to the Government to use its executive power to regularize such adhoc appointments by passing the PSC. Countering the direction given by the High Court to regularize the services of the Respondents, the Apex Court observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment as follows: It is true that the adhoc appointments have been continuing from 1986 onwards but their appointments are dehorse the Rules. Rules prescribed only two modes of recruitment, namely, direct recruitment or promotion by selection. As regards the lecturers are concerned, it is only by direct recruitment. The mode of recruitment suggested by the High Court, namely, regularisation by placing the service records of the Respondents before the PSC and consideration thereof and PSC's recommendation in that behalf is only a hybrid procedure not contemplated by the rules. Moreover, when the rules' prescribe direct recruitment, every eligible candidate is entitled to be considered and recruitment by open advertisement which is one of the well accepted modes of recruitment. Inviting applications for recruitment to fill in notified vacancies is consistent with the right to apply for, by qualified and eligible persons and consideration of their claim to an office or post under the State is a guaranteed right given under Article 14 and 16of the Constitution. The direction, therefore, issued by the Division Bench is in negation of Articles14 and 16 and in violation of the statutory rules. The PSC cannot be directed to devise a third mode of selection, as directed by the High Court, nor be mandated to disobey the constitution and the law. 30. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not pass any order as to costs. Petition dismissed