JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, A.C.J. This Review has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 545 of 2001. 2. The review petitioner had submitted an application for appointment to the post of Section Officer (S.O.) in the Public Works Department under a scheme adopted by the Government of Manipur for appointment of sportsperson to Class-III and Class-IV post in relaxation of the employment exchange procedure. An advertisement was issued by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. on 14.5.1999 to fill up one post of Section Officer reserved for sportsperson. Against this post the application of the review petitioner was considered. 3. A selection Committee met on 22.6.99 and it recommended the review petitioner for appointment to the post of Section Officer Grade-I (Civil) on regular basis. However, before approval of the said recommendation by the State Govt., a ban was imposed on 19.3.2001 on all direct recruitments and the pending recommendations made by different DPCs were freezed. Therefore, no letter of appointment could be issued in favour of the review petitioner. Accordingly, he filed a writ petition seeking for a direction to appoint him against the said post on the ground that he had already been selected by the Selection Committee for such appointment. 4. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment and order, came to the conclusion that in view of imposition of ban all recommendations made by the DPC stood cancelled and on the basis of such recommendation, the Review Petitioner could not be given appointment. The learned single Judge also held that recommendation made by the Selection Committee does not confer any right on the Review Petitioner to claim for appointment. On the above two grounds the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application. 5. This Review application has been filed on the ground that after dismissal of the writ petition, it came to the knowledge of the review petitioner that on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee an appointment letter had been signed. Reference, in this regard, is made to Annexure-A/2 to the Review Petition which indicates that the Chief Engineer-I, P.W.D. on 8.3.2000 had passed an order of appointment in favour of the review petitioner. Reference, in this regard, is made to Annexure-A/2 to the Review Petition which indicates that the Chief Engineer-I, P.W.D. on 8.3.2000 had passed an order of appointment in favour of the review petitioner. In order to find out the authenticity of such appointment letter, the review petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act and in Annexure-A/6 he was intimated that such appointment letter had been singed by the Chief Engineer-I with the remarks that "After lifts ban". This obviously means that the appointment letter was to take effect only after lifting of the ban. There is no dispute that the ban is continuing as on today. 6. In this connection, reference may also be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. v. Maju Jain and Ors.: reported in (2010) 9 SCC 157 . In paragraph 22 of the judgment in the above reported case, referring to two earlier constitution Bench decisions, it was held that an order does not become effective unless it is published and communicated to the person concerned. Before communication, the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. In paragraph 24 of the judgment, it was held that if an order is passed but not communicated by the authority, it does not create any legal right which can be enforced through the court of law as it does not become effective till it is communicated. Admittedly, the appointment order was not communicated to the review petitioner and accordingly he has no legal right to enforce in a court of law. 7. The review petition is accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.