1. The petitioners involved in this writ petitions have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure-4) which reads as follows : "GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT ORDER Read the order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the honTxle High Court in WP(C) No. 4686/2003 in the matter of Sri Mauddin Borbhuiya & 27 others v. State of Assam & Others. The hon'ble High Court vide its order disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the State respondents, more particularly the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department to instruct the appropriate authority to take a decision on the issue if not already taken and thereafter convey the same to the petitioners. The hon'ble High Court further viewed that as the selection was done in the year 1999, the above exercise should be completed within a period of one month. It appears from the report dated 4.4.2005 submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi that in the year 1999, the Sub-divisional Level Selection Board conducted interview for filling up vacant post of Asstt. Teacher of LP & ME Schools in Hailakandi district as per advertisement made in the year 1996. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi has also reported that no select/panel list was prepared or published. On the midnight of 18.9.99 the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi was gutted completely and all the records/papers relating to the interview and other properties of the office were burnt to ashes. Further Government, vide notification No. A(I)E 650/2003/68 dated 3.12.2003 cancelled all the select list of Elementary/Secondary Education, prepared/published prior to 1.4.2001. Hence the claim of the petitioners cannot be considered and thus regretted. This is Issued in compliance of order dated 20.6.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 4686/2003. Sd/- P. Dutta Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department Dated Dispur the 21st May, 2005." 2. The impugned order has set at rest the controversy relating to selection and appointments of the petitioners as school teachers (L.P7 M.E./M.V./M.E.M.). The petitioners appeared in the selection conducted in 1997 pursuant to the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.1996. According to them they fared well in the selection and were expecting their empanelment in the select list. However, contrary to their expectation the respondents did not publish any select list. The petitioners appeared in the selection conducted in 1997 pursuant to the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 28.12.1996. According to them they fared well in the selection and were expecting their empanelment in the select list. However, contrary to their expectation the respondents did not publish any select list. There was also ban on appointment and the same continued till March 2001. 3. When no select list was published, various writ petitions being WP(C) No. 194/2003, 195/2003, 196/2003, 4684/2003, 4686/2003, 4687/2003, etc., were filed. WP(C) No. 194/2003, 195/2003 and 196/2003 were disposed of by order dated 28.1.2003 providing publication of the select list. On the other hand, WP(C) No. 4684/2003 was disposed of by order dated 20.6.2003. While observing that for good and sufficient reasons the authority may decide to abandon the selection process, issued direction to take a decision in the matter. 4. The impugned order has been passed pursuant to the said direction rejecting the claim of the petitioners and others. As per the impugned order, no select list was prepared or published. Further, on the midnight of 18.9.1999 the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi was completely gutted in fire and all the records/papers relating to the interview and other properties of the office were burnt to assess. Thus, there was no question of publication of any select list. Further, as per the policy decision taken by the Government in the Education Department conveyed vide notification dated 3.12.2003, any select list prepared prior to 1.4.2001 stood cancelled. 5. I have heard Dr. Y.K, Phukan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Mr. Phukan, referring to the proceedings of Title Suit No. 84/1999 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division No. 1), Hailakandi pertaining to the same selection filed for appointment as school teachers, submits that in the written statement filed by the official respondents, it was never the plea that the records of the selection were gutted in fire. Contrary to the stand in the impugned order, rather it was denied that the records of selection had been gutted. Thus, according to him the respondents have taken the stand to suit the purpose. Contrary to the stand in the impugned order, rather it was denied that the records of selection had been gutted. Thus, according to him the respondents have taken the stand to suit the purpose. He further submits that the petitioners having appeared in the selection and there being no valid reasons for non-publication of the select list, appropriate direction is required to be issued for publication of the select list and to make appointment on that basis. 6. Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department submits that certain pleas referred to in other proceeding under different fact situation cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim and that they will have to project their own case. He submits that irrespective of the stand taken in the title suit, the fact remains that the suit has been dismissed. Placing reliance on the records produced by him, he submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He submits that even if some of the records were lying with the chairman of the Selection Board, that by itself cannot lead to publication of the select list in absence of the connected records, which were gutted in fire. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. In the earlier proceedings, the ultimate direction was to take a decision in the matter, which the respondents have taken and the same has been conveyed by the impugned order dated 21.5.2005, which has been quoted above. Altogether three grounds have been assigned towards rejection of the prayer of the petitioners and for that matter publication of the select list and then to make appointment. The First ground is that pursuant to the selection conducted in 1997, no select list was prepared and thus there was no question of publication of the same. Secondly, the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools was completely gutted in fire on 18.9.1999 and all the records including the records relating to the interview were destroyed and accordingly, there was no question of publication of any select list. Thirdly, as per the notification dated 3.12.2003, any select list prepared prior to 1.4.2001 stood automatically cancelled and, thus, even if any select list was published, same could not have been given effect to. 8. The advertisement and the selection conducted are about 10 years old. Thirdly, as per the notification dated 3.12.2003, any select list prepared prior to 1.4.2001 stood automatically cancelled and, thus, even if any select list was published, same could not have been given effect to. 8. The advertisement and the selection conducted are about 10 years old. It is true that the plea of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid title suit was controverted by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi by making a statement in his written statement that the relevant papers were handed over to the chairman and he kept the same in his safe custody. However, further statement made was that after taking interview, the chairman submitted the records to the Deputy Inspector of Schools to place the same before the Advisory Board for taking further action in respect of preparation of the select list. Instead of doing so, the said Deputy Inspector of Schools purportedly handed over the papers once again to the chairman to keep the same in his safe custody. This contradictory stand is not understood. If the papers were given to him for taking necessary follow action by way of getting approval, etc., it is not understood as to why he would have returned the same to the chairman for safe custody. If we are to accept this stand of the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, it will be a case of fraud on official procedure. Official records, more particularly, the selection records are normally kept with the official authority and not with any private person. Further, even if the records are available with the chairman, over the years same have become his private property and cannot be acted upon officially at this distant date. 9. Apart from the above, the records produced by Mr. Pathak have revealed that the Deputy Inspectors office was gutted in fire and all official files/papers were destroyed. It cannot be that entire records of selection were kept with chairman. Even if, some related papers were in the office, in absence of those papers, solely on the basis of the papers retained by the chairman no direction can be issued for publication of the select list. Further the chairman of the said Selection Board has not come forwarded to support the claim of the then Deputy Inspector of Schools. 10. Even if, some related papers were in the office, in absence of those papers, solely on the basis of the papers retained by the chairman no direction can be issued for publication of the select list. Further the chairman of the said Selection Board has not come forwarded to support the claim of the then Deputy Inspector of Schools. 10. As per procedure envisaged under the rules called the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialised) Rules, 1977, there shall be a Selection Committee in each educational sub-division to be constituted by the Sub-Divisional Level Advisory Board for elementary education. The chairman of the Sub-divisional Level Advisory Board and the Deputy Inspector of Schools shall be the chairman and Secretary of the Selection Committee respectively. 11. The further procedure envisaged in the rules is that on receipt of applications, the Selection Committee shall scrutinize the Mark sheets and other necessary testimonials of the candidates and prepare a list of candidates for interview. The Selection Committee shall then finalise the list of successful candidates in order of merit after interview and shall put up the list before the Board for approval. While approving the list, the Board shall be guided by declared policies of the Government and instructions issued from time to time. After approval of the list by the Board, the same shall be sent to the Director of Elementary Education for his final approval. The Deputy Inspector of Schools is required to appoint the selected candidates in order of merit from the list approved by the Director of Elementary Education as and when required as per the government Rules and Government instructions for the time being in force. Such select list is to remain valid for one year unless extended by the Government. 12. There is no dispute that the aforesaid, procedure envisaged in the rules was not followed or could not be followed and the matter did not reach the final stage. Thus, at this distant date (10 years), no mandamus can be issued for publication of the select list. In view of this finding, the question relating to the issuance of the notification dated 3.12.2003 rendering all the select lists issued prior to 1.4.2001 in fructuous, is now really academic. However, if the Government as a policy decision has decided not to implement the select list prepared prior to 1.4.2001, no fault can be attributed towards issuance of the same. However, if the Government as a policy decision has decided not to implement the select list prepared prior to 1.4.2001, no fault can be attributed towards issuance of the same. The Government has now issued advertisement in December 2005 for filling up numerous posts of LP and ME school teachers. The posts are meant for all the districts of Assam. It will be open for the petitioners to participate in the selection process by responding to the Employment Notice/advertisement. 13. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.