JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the Order dated 23.01.2013 passed in WP (C) 171/2011 whereby the writ petition was allowed to the extent of directing the Managing Director of Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner. The post in question is that of Junior Engineer under the said Board. 2. Facts to be noticed are that for the purpose of filling up vacant posts of Junior Engineer on regular basis under the Board, the appellants had called for names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange. The writ petitioner i.e. Subhash Paul being a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and being eligible, his name was recommended by the Employment Exchange. Interview was held on 29.01.2010 and the Selection Committee selected as many as 65 (sixty five) candidates, being five times the number of vacancies. The name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 11 of the Select List dated 30.03.2010. Since appointment was offered only upto the first 10 (ten) candidates in order of merit out of the 13 (thirteen) vacant posts of Junior Engineer, the denial of appointment to the petitioner who is placed at Serial No. 11, constrained him to institute the writ proceeding. The writ petitioner also pleaded that he belongs to the General Category and his position at Serial No. 11 corresponds to the 46th vacancy in the 100 point Roster. In the course of the writ proceedings and having regard to the fact that the records of the case did not specifically indicate that there were 13 (thirteen) vacancies, the Court had passed the order dated 18.05.2011 directing the appellants to file an affidavit indicating the number of vacancies for which selection was made and also to indicate whether there was a proposal for filling up the further vacancies on the basis of the selection so made. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit came to be filed on 06.06.2012 by the appellants and in paragraph 3 thereof, a categorical stand was taken that 4 (four) posts of Junior Engineers are lying vacant in different Divisions under the Sewerage Board. Also, in paragraph 4 thereof, appellants stated that they were contemplating to fill up the vacancies as per the selection held on 29.01.2010. 3. Also, in paragraph 4 thereof, appellants stated that they were contemplating to fill up the vacancies as per the selection held on 29.01.2010. 3. On the basic facts above and relying upon the Apex Court decisions in R.S. Mittal v. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 230; Director, SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and another v. M. Pushkaran reported in (2008) 1 SCC 448 and Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Kedia reported in (2012) 1 SCC 432 , the learned Single Judge held that there was no reason to deny appointment to the writ petitioner as 4 (four) vacancies were still available. Accordingly, a direction was made to the appellant no. 2 to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 4. A review petition, registered and numbered as Review Petition 186/2013, was filed by the appellants as against the order dated 23.01.2013. The said review petition was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2014 and while doing so the learned Single Judge took notice of the ground taken for seeking review, which was on the poor financial condition of the review petitioners and that they are not in a position to offer appointment to the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge held that the said ground was not a good ground for seeking review of the order dated 23.01.2013 and, accordingly, dismissed the review petition. 5. On appeal, the appellants have now urged that the stand taken in the additional affidavit dated 06.06.2012, sworn by the Secretary of the Board, was incorrect and contrary to office records. Additional ground taken is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the existence of 13 (thirteen) vacancies, as pleaded by the writ petitioner, was absolutely baseless and incorrect vis-a-vis the records of the case. Stand taken in the present appeal is that on the date of sending requisition to the Employment Exchange, there were only 6 (six) vacancies in the cadre of Junior Engineer. However, prior to the approval of the Select List, 2 (two) more vacancies were created in the 46th Board of the Directors' Meeting dated 26.02.2010. Unfortunately, 10 (ten) candidates were given appointment against the existing 8 (eight) vacant posts. However, prior to the approval of the Select List, 2 (two) more vacancies were created in the 46th Board of the Directors' Meeting dated 26.02.2010. Unfortunately, 10 (ten) candidates were given appointment against the existing 8 (eight) vacant posts. Further ground taken is that the existence of 4 (four) vacancies so indicated in the additional affidavit filed on 06.06.2012 by the Secretary of the Board were all future vacancies. According to the appellants, the select list got exhausted and the panel had expired. A ground is also taken that even if there be 3 (three) more vacancies after appointment of the first 10 (ten) candidates, the appellants have the prerogative to decide whether to fill up the post or not. It is stated that the Board being faced with serious financial constraints, it is legally justified not to fill up the post. 6. We have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel representing the appellants as well as Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner. We have also perused the materials available on record. 7. First and foremost, there can be no second opinion that right from the start the appellants have been changing their stand to suit their convenience. As against the pleaded case of the writ petitioner of the existence of 13 (thirteen) vacancies in the post of Junior Engineer, the appellants in paragraph 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) 171/2011 took a categorical stand that 10 (ten) vacancies were available at the time of calling of names of eligible candidates. In the additional affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Board on 06.06.2012, the stand taken is that over and above the 10 (ten) vacancies that had been filled up, there were 4 (four) more vacant posts of Junior Engineer and that the appellants were contemplating to fill up the said vacancies as per selection process held on 29.01.2010. Now on appeal, an altogether different stand is taken, as would be evident from para 6.1 of the Memo of Appeal, indicating that on the date of sending requisition to the Employment Exchange there were only 6 (six) vacancies in the cadre of Junior Engineer. Two more vacancies had been created prior to approval of the Merit List in the 46th Board of the Directors' Meeting dated 26.02.2010. However, unfortunately 10 (ten) candidates were given appointment against the existing 8 (eight) posts. Two more vacancies had been created prior to approval of the Merit List in the 46th Board of the Directors' Meeting dated 26.02.2010. However, unfortunately 10 (ten) candidates were given appointment against the existing 8 (eight) posts. Clearly, the actual number of posts to be filled up is being consistently changed by the appellants, starting from 10 (ten) posts to 14 (fourteen) posts to 8 (eight) posts. 8. To make out a case in its favour, the appellants have also gone to the extent of disowning the statements made in paragraph 3 and 4 of its additional affidavit filed on 06.06.2012 by the Secretary of the Board in terms of the Courts order dated 18.05.2011. Ground urged in the Memo of Appeal is that the said statements are incorrect and contrary to office records. This ground has been introduced only at the appellate stage and despite the additional affidavit having been filed on 06.06.2012, no steps had been taken by the appellants by means of filing any affidavit with prayer for recalling the statements made at paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof. The said additional affidavit was filed on 06.06.2012 whereas the judgment in WP(C) 171/2011 was rendered on 23.01.2013 i.e. after more than 6 (six) months thereafter. In any event, taking a cue from the case in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in 2004 (12)SCC 118 , the appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the statements and averments made in the additional affidavit filed on 06.06.2012. 9. It would also be essential to notice that in the Review Petition 186/2013, the only ground taken was with regard to the poor financial condition of the appellants and that it was not in a position to offer appointment to the writ petitioner. 10. Also important to notice, the contention of the appellants that the 4 (four) vacancies, as stated by the Secretary of the Board in the additional affidavit dated 06.06.2012, are future vacancies, the same is a fresh plea taken during the appellate stage. Such plea was not taken by the appellants in the writ proceeding. 11. On a careful consideration of the case, we are in respectful agreement to the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in WP(C) 171/2011. Such plea was not taken by the appellants in the writ proceeding. 11. On a careful consideration of the case, we are in respectful agreement to the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in WP(C) 171/2011. The inconsistent stand taken by the appellants with regard to the number of vacancies in its affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) 171/2011 and that taken on appeal now is viewed with reservations as regards the bonafide of the appellants. The appellants cannot be allowed to go back and/or disown the statements and averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the additional affidavit dated 06.06.2012. In view of the statements made in the said additional affidavit, the right of the writ petitioner to be appointed cannot be taken away on the pretext that the panel of selected candidates had expired, more so, when vacancies are available for appointment. The judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge goes to support the claim of the writ petitioner to secure appointment as Junior Engineer. 12. From the discussions and findings above, we hold that the appellants have not been able to make out a case for upsetting the order dated 23.01.2013 passed in WP(C) 171/2011. This appeal stands dismissed with direction to the appellants to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. The respondent/writ petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order before the appellants for their doing the needful in terms of the direction above. 13. Appeal stands dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.