JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra; ACJ.:- These two writ appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 21.9.2006 delivered by the learned single Judge in a batch of four writ petitions. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Director of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Manipur issued a letter on 25.5.1999 to all the Employment Exchange Officers of Manipur to sponsor candidates for appointment against 29 vacant posts of Veterinary Field Assistant in the Department. It was mentioned in the said letter that a Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee would be held on 14.6.1999 to recommend suitable candidates for appointment to the said posts. In response to the said letter/requisition, the writ petitioners and some other eligible candidates submitted their applications for such appointment. The Selection Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee met from 15.2.1999 to 19.2.1999 wherein the writ petitioners and others appeared, but the result prepared by the Selection Committee was not announced for considerable length of time. 3. On 6.11.1999 the Govt. of Manipur issued an order putting a ban on appointment against all the existing vacancies in public interest and further directed that wherever DPC has been held for direct recruitment, result thereof shall not be published. In view of the above order of the Government of Manipur, some of the writ petitioners filed two Writ Applications before the Gauhati High Court for a direction to the State respondents to declare the result of the DPC and allow them to work as Veterinary Field Assistant till declaration of the result. One of the said writ petitions, viz WP(C) No.424 of 2000 was disposed of on 22.8.2000 directing the State respondents to declare result of the DPC held from 15.2.1999 immediately within one week from the date ban is lifted and further directed that the petitioners therein shall not be ousted till the posts are filled up on regular basis. Another writ petition was filed, vide WP(C) No. 941 of 2002 by one Gaichampu Gangmei and some others praying for declaration of the result and said writ petition was disposed of on 24.1.2003 directing the State authorities to announce the result of the said DPC held between 15th to 19th June, 1999 within seven days. In compliance of the said order, Govt. of Manipur ultimately published the result in which 29 candidates in order of merit were placed in the select list. In compliance of the said order, Govt. of Manipur ultimately published the result in which 29 candidates in order of merit were placed in the select list. The writ petitioners in WPC No.604/2006, WPC No.543 of 2004 and WPC No. 663 of 2004 found place in the select list of 29 candidates. However, writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 312 of 2004 did not find place in the said select list. Therefore, they prayed for declaring result of the wait list in the said writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge disposed of all the four writ petitions in a common judgment and directed the present appellants to appoint the writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos- 453 and 663 of 2004 and WP(C) No.604 of 2006 who found place in the select list of 29 candidates, but dismissed WP(C) No. 312 of 2005 which had been filed by those candidates who did not find place in the select list. 5. The State has filed three writ appeals against the said common judgment and the petitioners in WP(C) No. 312 of 2005 had also filed one writ appeal. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 312 of 2005 were working on ad hoc basis and subsequently they were regularised. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No.312 of 2005 was not pressed and the Writ Appeal filed by the State authorities in relation to the said case was also not pressed. Accordingly, the left over two writ appeals were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of in this common order. 6. Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has only one grievance so far as the impugned judgment is concerned. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if the writ petitioners were selected by the DPC for appointment, no right accrued in their favour to claim for appointment. They can only exercise their right of consideration for such appointment having been selected by the DPC. The learned single Judge, in the impugned order, instead of directing consideration to their cases for appointment, directed the State appellants to appoint them which is not permissible under law. 7. Mr. Ng. They can only exercise their right of consideration for such appointment having been selected by the DPC. The learned single Judge, in the impugned order, instead of directing consideration to their cases for appointment, directed the State appellants to appoint them which is not permissible under law. 7. Mr. Ng. Jotindra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the above position and submitted that the respondents having been selected by the DPC for such appointment, the State can consider their appointment and pass necessary orders. 8. Keeping in mind the law in this regard and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are also of the view that mere selection does not confer any right to be appointed whereas the right for consideration is available to those who are selected for such appointment. Therefore, the learned single Judge, in the impugned judgment, could not have directed the present appellants to appoint the respondents solely on the ground that they had been selected for such appointment. We, therefore, dispose of both the appeals by modifying the impugned order and directing that the respondents in the above two writ appeals may be considered for appointment to the post of Veterinary Field Assistants in the Department of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services, Govt of Manipur in view of their selection for such appointment by the DPC which conducted the test from 15th to 19th June, 1999. Both the writ appeals are disposed of with the above modification in the impugned judgment with a further direction to implement the same within four months from the date of communication of this order.