JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Khound, learned Standing counsel, BTC appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36 and 39 and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioners, 15 in numbers, were selected pursuant to an advertisement as Assistant Teacher, except the petitioner No. 2, who was selected as a Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.) in different Higher Secondary/High Schools, though wrongly mentioned as M.E. in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. However, as they were not appointed, they have approached this Court. 2. Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is covered by a judgment dated 18.08.2008, passed in WP(C) No. 5867/2003, which is also listed today alongwith this case. 3. It is submitted by him that as the petitioners in the aforesaid case stood in the same footing, as the petitioners herein, the same benefit should be given to the present petitioners and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.I. Shephard and Anrs. -Vrs- Union of India and Anr., reported in AIR 1988 SC 686 . It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 24 to 39, who were writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 5867/2003 and who were appointed consequent upon direction of this Court dated 18.08.2008, figured in the select list below the petitioners, and as such their appointment is liable to be quashed and in their places, the petitioners should be appointed. 4. He has submitted that though the select list was published in the year 2003, as appointments pursuant to the orders of this Court in the aforesaid case was made in the year 2009, the select list is still valid and operative. 5. Mr. Khound, learned Standing counsel, BTC submits that earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 5867/2003 was filed by 46 writ petitioners, out of which 13 writ petitioners in the said case figuring at Sl. Nos. 5. Mr. Khound, learned Standing counsel, BTC submits that earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 5867/2003 was filed by 46 writ petitioners, out of which 13 writ petitioners in the said case figuring at Sl. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the writ petition were not found to have been selected and accordingly, on the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners, direction was given for appointment of the 33 persons who were duly selected and they were consequently appointed. 6. Mr. K. Sarma represents some of these appointees, who were appointed pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court. 7. Placing reliance on the affidavit filed, it is submitted by Mr. Khound that petitioners cannot be put at par with the petitioners in the writ petition WP(C) No. 5867/2003, as the present petitioners have come after a delay of eight years from expiry of the list. Appointments made in the year 2009 in respect of the earlier writ petitioners pursuant to directions of this Court cannot extend the validity of the list qua the present petitioners, who according to him, did not approach this Court during the validity of the select list and had chosen to come to this Court after eight years of expiry of the list. 8. Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department submits that in terms of Rule 7(9) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (as amended), for short, the Rules of 2003, the validity of the select list shall not exceed beyond one year from the date of its publication by the Director. In terms of Rule 7(f) of the earlier Rules also, namely, Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982, for short, the Rules of 1982, the select list remains valid for one year from the date of publication of the list unless extended by the Government. It is not the case of the petitioners that the validity of the list was extended by the Government, he submits. This Court in its order dated 18.08.2008 had recorded that select list was published on 28.05.2003 and the said writ petition was filed in the year 2003 itself, which is not the case so far as the present petitioners are concerned. This Court in its order dated 18.08.2008 had recorded that select list was published on 28.05.2003 and the said writ petition was filed in the year 2003 itself, which is not the case so far as the present petitioners are concerned. He submits that there is no enforceable right of the petitioners and accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, the respondent Nos. 24 to 39 having been appointed pursuant to order of this Court, which order still holds the field, their appointments cannot be set aside in a separate writ proceeding. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the materials available on record. 10. At the very outset, it will be relevant to reproduce the order dated 18.08.2008 in its entirety. Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (for short referred to as the 'Council'). The petitioners, 46 in numbers, have approached this Court for an appropriate writ and/or direction to the respondents to appoint them in the post of Assistant Teacher/Demonstrators/Subject Teacher in HS/HE Schools in the then Nalbari district, now located within the BTAD on the basis of the select list 28.05.2003, prepared by the then Secretary of Education, Bodoland Autonomous Council, Kokrajhar, Assam. Sans the unnecessary details, it would suffice to mention that the petitioners have contended that they had duly participated in the process preceding the said select list and being duly selected, are entitled to be appointed. As, inspite of their selection they have been denied appointment, they have, approached this Court for redress. The Director of Education, BAC, Kokrajhar, Assam, in his affidavit has pleaded that on a scrutiny of the records, the selection of 33 petitioners, as enumerated in the Annexure to the communication No. DE/BTC/CC/S/Nal/3/04/84, dated 07.12.2007, has been found to be valid and that necessary steps have been taken to facilitate their appointments. The answering respondent, however, has dismissed the claim of the remaining 13 petitioners' to be untenable, as their names did not figure in the approved select list. Mr. Das, to be precise, has pointed out that the petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 are not found to have been selected. Mr. The answering respondent, however, has dismissed the claim of the remaining 13 petitioners' to be untenable, as their names did not figure in the approved select list. Mr. Das, to be precise, has pointed out that the petitioner Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 27, 28, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 are not found to have been selected. Mr. Choudhury, confronted with the above, has submitted that the petition be closed with a direction to the Council to expedite the appointment of 33 petitioners, whose selection have been found to be valid. The learned Standing Counsel, concurs with the mode of disposal as suggested. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the pleaded facts and the submissions made, this petition is closed with a direction to the official respondents, more particularly, the respondent No. 7, Director of Education, BAC, Kokrajhar, Assam, to cause immediate steps to be taken for expeditious completion of the process undertaken for appointment of the 33 petitioners aforementioned, in the posts for which they have been selected. As the petitioners are wait in expectation, this Court, having regard to the official formalities to be attended to in the matter, fixes an outer limit of three (3) months for the respondents to complete the exercise as above. The petition stands partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. 11. From the reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the select list was published on 28.05.2003 and therefore, the select list spent its force on expiry of one year thereof. 12. A mandamus can be issued by the Court when a petitioner establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the State to do something which is contrary to law. 13. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the State to do something which is contrary to law. 13. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Choudhury that because appointments were made in the year 2009 on the basis of the judgment of this Court at the instance of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5867/2003 who came before this Court within the period of validity, automatically extends the validity of list in respect of all the persons in the select list even upto the year 2011, when the present writ petition came to be filed. 14. In State of U.P. and Ors., -Vrs- Harish Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 , the Apex Court at Paragraph 10 had held that no directions could have been given by the High Court to recruit the writ petitioners whose names were included in the select list prepared on 04.04.1987 and which had expired after one year of its preparation and that the rights, if any, of persons included in the select list did not subsist on the date when they approached the High Court. The Apex Court, while deprecating the practice adopted by the appointing authority in making appointments after expiry of the validity of the list, also rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the selectees that even if on some occasions appointments had been made by the appointing authority after the expiry of the validity of the list, such an illegal action of the appointing authority does not confer a right on a petitioner to be enforced by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The pleadings in the form of the writ petition and the affidavits, do not, however, indicate how many persons figured in the select list. 16. Be that as it may, as the select list had expired long back on 27.05.2004, there is no enforceable right of the petitioners, even if it is assumed that the names of the petitioners figured in the select list. 17. The decision rendered in K.I. Shephard (supra), cited by Mr. Choudhury is not at all attracted in the facts of this case. In Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. 17. The decision rendered in K.I. Shephard (supra), cited by Mr. Choudhury is not at all attracted in the facts of this case. In Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. -Vrs- Jaswant Singh and Anr., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 , the Apex Court had observed that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years on the ground that the same relief should be granted to him as was granted to a person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and had ventilated his grievances before his retirement. It was also laid down that those who were sitting on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided favourably and thereafter woke up to institute a proceeding, are not entitled to any relief. In view of the above, I find no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost. Application dismissed