JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition No. 5728/2010 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, challenging the judgment and order dated 9.4.2012. By the said judgment and order dated 9.4.2012, while the appointment of the appellants were set aside and quashed, the prayer made by the writ petitioner for issuance of order of appointment in his favour was declined. 2. The facts as set out in the writ petition, may, briefly, be noticed: (a) The writ petitioner, who obtained his B.Sc. Degree from Pragjyotish College, Guwahati, responding to an advertisement/employment notice issued in the year 1996 by the Director of Secondary Education, for short, DSE, for filling up of around 1000 vacant posts of Graduate Teachers/Assistant Teachers in the provincialised High Schools/High Madrassa Schools of different districts of Assam and around 200 number of vacant posts of Subject Teachers of Higher Secondary Schools, submitted his candidature, being eligible in terms of the said advertisement/employment notice. In the year 1997, a notice was published by the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, requiring the eligible candidates to appear before the Interview Board for interview/viva-voce to be held on different dates, fixed on the basis of Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC). The petitioner belongs to Rangia LAC. For Rangia LAC, dates of interview were fixed from 16.5.1997 to 18.5.1997 and the petitioner appeared in the interview under Roll No. 2134 on 16.5.1997 for appointment as Graduate Teacher. Subsequently, he was selected by the Selection Board for appointment as Graduate Teacher vide select list dated 31.3.2001. It is also claimed that his name figured in two lists, dated 30.3.2001 and 31.3.2001, at serial Nos. 9 and 6, for Science Graduate Teacher posts. As there was delay in making appointment, petitioner filed a writ petition which was numbered as W.P.(C) No. 3722/2001 praying for a Writ of Mandamus to appoint him as an Assistant Teacher in any school under Rangia LAC. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 30.5.2001 directing the respondents to examine the matter and to give appointment to the petitioner if the statements made in the writ petition were found to be true, making it clear that no post of Assistant Teacher would be filled up by any candidate from outside the select list. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 30.5.2001 directing the respondents to examine the matter and to give appointment to the petitioner if the statements made in the writ petition were found to be true, making it clear that no post of Assistant Teacher would be filled up by any candidate from outside the select list. On 19.6.2006, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, writ petition was disposed of presuming that in view of the order dated 30.5.2001, the petitioner must have obtained the relief claimed. The petitioner came to know of the said order only in the year 2007. The petitioner was, in fact, not appointed and therefore, he filed a review application to review the order dated 19.6.2006, which was registered as Review Petition (C) No. 105/2007. (b) The validity of the select list dated 31.3.2001, was challenged in writ petitions registered as W.P.(C) No. 3296/2001 and W.P.(C) No. 4350/2003. The aforesaid petitions were dismissed by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 and the judgment is reported in 2006 (1) GLT 80 (Bangkim Kalita Vs. State of Assam & Ors). A finding was recorded in the said judgment that there was a select list dated 29.3.2001 containing 96 candidates, which was already acted upon by way of appointment of 96 selected candidates and there is no select list dated 31.3.2001. (c) Digressing from the pleaded case of the writ petitioner, at this juncture, it will be necessary to point out that in W.P.(C) No. 3296/2001, challenge was not to the validity of the select list dated 31.3.2001, but the writ petition was filed for a direction to appoint the writ petitioner in the said case pursuant to his name figuring in the select list dated 31.3.2001. In W.P.(C) No. 4350/2003, subject matter of challenge was an order of transfer of the respondent No. 5 of the said writ petition on the ground that prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 3296/2001 was sought to be made infructuous by issuing such transfer order. (d) We revert back to the pleaded case. The respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 5728/2010, appellant No. 1 herein, claimed that his name figured in Sl. (d) We revert back to the pleaded case. The respondent No. 4 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 5728/2010, appellant No. 1 herein, claimed that his name figured in Sl. No. 5 of the select list dated 31.3.2001 and he filed a writ petition numbered as W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001 praying for his appointment in any existing vacancy that may arise in Borigog Hajo Higher Secondary School. By an order dated 25.5.2001, a Single Judge of this court directed the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Teacher (graduate) in Borigog Hajo Higher Secondary School by issuing necessary order within a period of three weeks. After lapse of 8 years, DSE appointed him by an order dated 14.8.2009. (e) The respondent No. 5 in W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010, appellant No. 2 herein, also filed a writ petition registered as W.P.(C) No. 2985/2001 challenging the appointment of one Ramananda Bhatta, whose name appeared at serial No. 8 of the select list dated 30.3.2001 overlooking him, who was at serial No. 7, and also praying for a direction to appoint him in place of said Ramananda Bhatta. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11.8.2005 with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner against the existing vacancy available in any provincialised Higher Secondary School of Assam. It is averred that alleging non-compliance of the order dated 11.8.2005, Contempt Petition (C) No. 64/2006 was filed, which was disposed of on 26.5.2006 on withdrawal. (f) Although no averments are made with regard to appointment of present appellant No. 2, it is stated that he is continuing to discharge the duties as Assistant Teacher in Nagarik H.S. School Bani Vidyapilh. For the record, it is seen from the memo of appeal that the appellant No. 2 was appointed by an order dated 9.12.2006. (g) The Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010 also filed a review application being M.C. No. 3228/2011, seeking review of the order dated 25.5.2001, passed in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001, which was filed by the appellant No. 1 herein. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010 had also filed a review application being Review Application No. 105/2007 to seek review of the order dated 19.6.2006 dismissing his writ petition. These petitions, we are informed at the bar, were also dismissed by separate orders dated 9.4.2012 at the time of dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010 had also filed a review application being Review Application No. 105/2007 to seek review of the order dated 19.6.2006 dismissing his writ petition. These petitions, we are informed at the bar, were also dismissed by separate orders dated 9.4.2012 at the time of dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 5728/2010. 3. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, (Secondary) Education, had filed an affidavit. The stand of the Department is set out in paragraphs 5 and 6. It is considered appropriate to extract the said paragraphs herein below: "5. That the deponent begs to state that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.5.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001 directed the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner namely Md. Ataur Rahman as Assistant Teacher at Borigog Hajo Higher Secondary School. It is seen that the then Director of Secondary Education, Assam, namely Md. Mohsin Ali appointed Md. Ataur Rahman as Asstt. Teacher vide order No. GB.EST/DSE/CC/145/2003/66-A dated 14.8.2009 on receipt of Govt. direction vide letter No. ELC/ W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001/775/108 dated 11.8.2009. Likewise, Sri Samin Kalita was also appointed as Assistant Teacher at Bani Bidyapith Higher Secondary School from a list dated 30.3.2011 by the then Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 9.12.2006 on receipt of the Govt. approval dated 23.11.2006 issued in pursuance of the order dated 11.8.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2985/2001 by this Hon'ble Court. However, in view of the judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in Bankim Kalita's case, the said two appointment orders ought not to have been issued and therefore the Govt. now shall take necessary corrective measures and institute an enquiry to find out the erring officials and upon such findings shall draw necessary proceedings. 6. That the deponent begs to sate that the Government did not file any appeal or review petition against the orders dated 25.5.2001 and 11.8.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001 and W.P.(C) No. 2985/2001 respectively, rather, complied with the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court. It is pertinent to mention that Sri Ataur Rahman also filed a contempt petition No. 379/2001 for non-compliance of the order dated 25.5.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001. The said contempt petition was dismissed on 18.11.2009 i.e. after the appointment of Md. Ataur Rahman made on 14.8.2009. Similarly, abovenamed Samin Ch. It is pertinent to mention that Sri Ataur Rahman also filed a contempt petition No. 379/2001 for non-compliance of the order dated 25.5.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001. The said contempt petition was dismissed on 18.11.2009 i.e. after the appointment of Md. Ataur Rahman made on 14.8.2009. Similarly, abovenamed Samin Ch. Kalita also filed a contempt case vide contempt petition No. 64/2006 for non-compliance of the Order dated 11.8.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2985/2001. The said contempt case was closed on withdrawal vide Order dated 23.5.2008 i.e. after the appointment of Samin Ch. Kalita made on 19.12.2006. As mentioned above, the appointments were made during the tenure of the then Director Secondary Education, Assam, Sri Mohsin Ali. 4. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant No. 1 was appointed, may be belatedly, by following a positive direction of this court dated 25.5.2001 in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001 to give him appointment. It is submitted by him that the said order dated 25.5.2001 having attained finality, merely because in a subsequent case, a view is taken that select list dated 31.3.2001 was not a valid list, the same cannot be a basis for setting aside the order of appointment made in favour of the appellant No. 1. In support of his said submission, the learned counsel places reliance on a Division Bench Judge of this court in Writ Appeal No. 341/2007 (State of Assam Vs. Kalpa Ram Deka & Ors.). 5. With regard to the appellant No. 2, the learned counsel submits that in Bangkim Kalita (supra), there is no discussion with regard to the select list dated 30.3.2001, and thus, the learned Single Judge committed error of law in setting aside and quashing the order of appointment on a presumption that the select list dated 30.3.2001 was also declared to be invalid. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education has submitted that even though there is no discussion in Bangkim Kalita (supra) With regard to the select list dated 30.3.32001, the only conclusion that can be arrived at with regard to the selection process in question was that as in the said case this court had treated the list dated 29.3.2001 to be the only valid list, by necessary implication, the select list dated 30.3.2001 is an invalid select list and thus, the appellant No. 2 ought not to have been appointed on 9.12.2006 after decision of Bangkim Kalita (supra) was rendered on 9.11.2005. 7. In Bangkim Kalita (supra), the learned Single Judge observed in paragraph 23 as follows: "While going through the file produced by Mr. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education department, I have come across the undated note prepared by Mr. B.K. Das, the then Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Assam, now the Deputy Director of SCERT. It is not discernible as to in respect of which selection such a note was prepared by Shri Das. The note contained in the file in his own handwriting in his letter head made shocking revelations which I reproduce below: "1) The Minister, Education has compelled me to attend him along with staff at Hotel Belview and Khanapara Guest House on 28th, 26th March. 2) The Board members have pressurized me to issue appointment letters within 2 days. 3) The Hon'ble M.P. Jayashri Mahanta, Education, Health Minister, Co-operation Minister, MAD Minister and Sports Minister have given pressure for appointments by sending police personnel and political people for their office staff but I raised. 4) Jt. Secy. Education has also written to the but I have raised. 5) Apprehending the situation which might occur I availed C.L. w.e.f. 2nd to 16th April. 6) All appointments are made against existing vacancies that are within the limit of clearance of the Govt." 8. The revelations above are, indeed, shocking revelations as held by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge noted that there was no material to indicate in connection with which selection process such a note was prepared. We will not hazard a guess as to whether such a practice was the norm in respect of selection processes at the relevant point of time. 9. The learned Single Judge noted that there was no material to indicate in connection with which selection process such a note was prepared. We will not hazard a guess as to whether such a practice was the norm in respect of selection processes at the relevant point of time. 9. In Kalpa Ram Deka (supra), the decision rendered on 21.8.2002 in W.P.(C) No. 6221/01 was not challenged by the appellant State of Assam. As appointments were not given pursuant to the direction, a contempt petition being COP(C) 422/03 came to be filed and during pendency of the said contempt petition, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6221/01 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on fixed pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Challenging the said pay granted to them, writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6813/2005 was filed and a learned Single Judge of this court disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 6.2.2007 directing the State to make available to the writ petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 1375/- 3375/-, which direction was subject matter of appeal in W.A. No. 341/2007. In paragraph 9, the Division Bench stated as follows: "9. While considering this appeal, what needs to be pointed out is that the fact that the directions, given by the judgment and order, dated 21.8.2002 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6221/2001, had attained finality and that the private respondents herein were appointed as Assistant Teachers is not in dispute before us. In such circumstances it no longer remains open to the present appellants to contend that the private respondents herein were not duly selected candidates. There was, in our firm view, no justification to continue to give the private respondents a fixed pay of Rs. 2500/- per month. Where the selection had been made pursuant to the advertisement, published in the year 1996, the private respondents ought to have been given, at least the pay scale, which the said advertisement had mentioned." 10. The learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal, while dealing with the appointment orders of the appellants herein, recorded as follows: "6. What is, now, imperative to note that, as far as respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Md. The learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal, while dealing with the appointment orders of the appellants herein, recorded as follows: "6. What is, now, imperative to note that, as far as respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Md. Ataur Rahman, is concerned, his name had figured in the Select lists, dated 30.03.2001, and 31.03.2001, but as he was not appointed in spite of his name having figured in the two Select lists aforementioned, respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Md. Ataur Rahman, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to W.P.(C) 3575/2001 (Md. Ataur Rahman and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.). By order, dated 25.05.2001, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the State respondents/authorities concerned to appoint the said Ataur Rahman (i.e., respondent No. 4 herein) as Assistant Teacher (Graduate) in Bangog Hajo Higher Secondary School, Dimu, by issuing necessary order in that regard. 7. However, as because despite the order, so passed, on 25.05.2001, in W.P.(C) No. 3575/2001, for appointing Ataur Rahman, he was not appointed, he initiated a contempt proceeding for non-compliance of the directions aforementioned, by filing a application, in this regard, which gave rise to Contempt Case No. 379(C)/2001. 8. For some strange and unexplained reasons, the Department concerned never brought, in the Contempt Case No. 379(C)/2001, to the notice of the Court that the Select lists, dated 30.03.2001 and 31.03.2001, had already been held, on 09.11.2005, in Bangkim Kalita's case (supra), to be invalid Select lists. In fact, without bringing it to the notice of the Court that the Select lists, dated 30.03.2001 and 31.03.2001, had already been held to be invalid Select lists and that Ataur Rahman's name figured in the said two Select lists and not in the Select list, dated 29.03.2001, which had been held by the Court, in Bangkim Kalita's case (supra), to be the sole valid Select list, Ataur Rahman (i.e., respondent No. 4 herein) was appointed by the then Director, Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam, by order, dated 14.082009. 9. 9. Considering the fact that the name of the respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Ataur Rahman, appeared in the Select lists, dated 30.03.2001 and 31.03.2001, and not in the Select list, dated 29.03.2001, his appointment is, in the considered view of this Court, ex facie illegal, he ought not to have been appointed and that the correct factual scenario ought to have been placed before the Court in the said contempt proceeding, namely, Contempt Case No. 379(C)/2001. 10. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the appointment of respondent No. 4, namely, Ataur Rahman, is, as indicated hereinbefore, illegal, his appointment cannot be sustained and must be set aside and quashed, and the persons, who are responsible for their omission to bring the actual state of affairs before the Court in the said contempt proceeding, namely, Contempt Case 379(C)/2001, and also the persons, who were responsible for making appointment of the respondent No. 4, namely Ataur Rahman, are required to be dealt with in accordance with law for their illegal actions and omissions, unless such actions and omissions can be shown to be inadvertent and in-deliberate. 11. Coming to the case of respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Sri Samin Chandra Kalita, this Court finds that his name figured in the two invalid Select lists, namely, Select list, dated 30.03.2001, and Select list, dated 31.03.2001. However, he, too, having not received appointment, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to W.P.(C) 2985/2001 (Shamin Chandra Kalita vs. Mr. P. Dutta & Anr.), and his writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 11.08.2005, with directions to the State respondents/authorities concerned to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner (i.e., respondent No. 5 herein) against the existing vacancies available in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. In this case also [i.e., in the case of Shamin Chandra Kalita (supra)], as no appointment was, immediately, made by the State respondents/authorities concerned, the writ petitioner (i.e. respondent No. 5 herein) filed an application seeking drawing of contempt proceeding, which gave rise to Contempt Case 64(C)/2006. While this contempt proceeding was pending, an order of appointment of respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Shamin Chandra Kalita, was issued on 09.12.2006, by the then Director, Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam, without, however, bringing it to the notice of the Court, for some unexplained reasons, the decision in Bangkim Kalita's case (supra). While this contempt proceeding was pending, an order of appointment of respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Shamin Chandra Kalita, was issued on 09.12.2006, by the then Director, Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam, without, however, bringing it to the notice of the Court, for some unexplained reasons, the decision in Bangkim Kalita's case (supra). As the name of respondent No. 5, namely Ataur Rahman, does not figure in the Select list, dated 29.03.2001, which is, in the light of the decision, in Bangkim Kalita's case (supra), the only valid Select list, respondent No. 5 herein could not, and ought not to have, been appointed and, therefore, his appointment, too, being wholly illegal, cannot be sustained and the same needs to be set aside and quashed." 11. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Roy Choudhury that as there was no reference to the select list dated 30.3.2001 in Bangkim Kalita (supra), the learned Single Judge was wholly wrong in presuming that the selection list dated 30.3.2001 was also held invalid in Bangkim Kalita (supra). It is correct that there was no reference to the select list dated 30.3.2001 in Bangkim Kalita (supra). In the said case, the petitioner was relying on a select list dated 31.3.2001. However, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in Bangkim Kalita (supra), in the considered opinion of this court, leaves no room for doubt that there was only one select list in connection with the selection process with which we are concerned, i.e., the select list dated 29.3.2001. 12. Therefore, the appellants could not have been validly appointed on the basis of the so called select lists dated 30.3.2001 and 31.3.2001. However, this court cannot also lose sight of the fact that by an order passed by this court dated 25.5.2001, State respondents were directed to appoint the appellant No. 1 as Assistant Teacher on the ground that persons below him in the select list dated 31.3.2001 had been appointed. The validity of the select list dated 31.3.2001, in the said case, was not gone into. The validity of the select list dated 31.3.2001, in the said case, was not gone into. Similarly, a reading of the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 2985/2001, instituted by the appellant No. 2, on the same analogy that the persons junior to him in the select list dated 30.3.2001 were appointed, allowed the writ petition, in which prayer was made for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint him, by directing the respondents to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner in any of the existing vacancies available in other provincialised Higher Secondary Schools of Assam. Pursuant to such orders of this court, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 were appointed by orders dated 14.8.2009 and 19.12.2006, respectively. There were many developments in the interregnum as have been noticed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs quoted supra. Despite the order dated 25.5.2001 and 11.8.2005 made in favour of the writ appellant No. 1 and writ appellant No. 2, respectively, fact remains that they were not appointed till the judgment in Bangkim Kalita (supra) was rendered on 9.11.2005. We have no hesitation to hold that the officials of the State failed to discharge their duties in the manner expected of them. The orders dated 25.5.2001 and 11.8.2005 of this court in the writ petitions instituted by the present appellants were allowed to attain finality and in our considered opinion, notwithstanding the deplorable state of affairs, decision rendered in Bangkim Kalita (supra), could not have been applied to cancel the appointments made in favour of the appellants, which were issued on the basis of positive directions of this court. 13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above by setting aside the direction of the learned Single Judge cancelling the appointment orders of the appellants. However, other directions of the impugned judgment are not interfered with. No cost. Before parting with the record, we make it clear that we have allowed the appeal as indicated above only on the ground that there were directions for appointment to the writ appellants by this court in the writ petitions filed by the appellants.