JUDGMENT : Heard Shri R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri S Borthakur, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 15 to 24. 2. The writ petition has been instituted with the following prayers: “ In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that, your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition, call for the record of the case, issue a Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued to the Respondent Authorities, modifying: The impugned "Statement of District wise Vacancy Position of Supervisor as on 2005- 2006, after the interview held during the year 2005". The impugned "List of Supervisors Appointed in Lakhimpur District" issued by the Programme Officer-II, Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam Guwahati-1 on 29.04.2015. The impugned Order dated 30/12 (year not mentioned), issued by the Government of Assam, Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam, Uzanbazar Guwahati under the signature of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, Guwahati and simultaneously as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to dispose of the and/or any other appropriate Writ/or direction of a like nature should not be issued, directing the Respondent Authorities: To dispose of the Representation dated 31.10.2006 submitted by the Petitioner before Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, the Director, Social Welfare Assam/the Hon'ble Minister of Social Welfare, Assam respectively and before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department on 05.12.2007, praying for extension of the Select List dated 11.11.2005. To dispose of the Letter dated 11.01.2016 submitted by the Petitioner before the Director of Social Welfare, Government of Assam, Uzanbazar, Guwahati-01, praying for cancellation of illegal appointments o the ineligible candidates to the post of Supervisor under Lakhimpur District, violating all the norms, Government Circulars etc. -AND- In the interim, to extend the said Notification dated 11.11.2005 vide No.DSW(ICDS)E/33/2005/127 issued by the Government of Assam, Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam, Guwahati-1 under the signature of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, Uzanbazar, Guwahati-1. -AND- In the interim, to extend the said Notification dated 11.11.2005 vide No.DSW(ICDS)E/33/2005/127 issued by the Government of Assam, Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam, Guwahati-1 under the signature of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, Uzanbazar, Guwahati-1. To preserve one post for the Petitioner out of the remaining 7 vacant post as evident from the "Statement of District wise Vacancy Position of Supervisor as on 2005-2006, after the interview held during the year 2005" till the final disposal of this Case and/or may be pleased to pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. As per the facts projected, in the year 2005, a recruitment process was initiated for appointment of 26 posts of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner claimed to be eligible and had participated in the recruitment process and was selected against the Sl. No. 22. However, it is the case of the petitioner that while others were appointed, she was left out. 4. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the selection was of the year 2005, till the year 2017, persons from the said select list were appointed. He contends that the petitioner had also obtained certain information by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as a result, some time was consumed and ultimately, this writ petition was instituted in the year 2018. 5. It is submitted that as per information, 7 nos. of posts were still said to be vacant and only 19 numbers were filled up. He has also submitted that so far as the respondent no. 14 is concerned, her position in the select list was 31 and bypassing the claim of the petitioner, she was appointed. It is also submitted that though in the affidavit filed by the State, a justification has been sought to be made that the appointment of the respondent no. 14 was on the basis of the roster point, no supporting documents have been annexed. 6. The petitioner has also raised a question on the validity of the appointment of 9 persons who have been given the benefit of 25% quota from the post of Anganwadi Workers (AWW). It is submitted that the said persons do not fulfill the requirement and their initial appointments on temporary basis was also not in accordance with law. 7. 6. The petitioner has also raised a question on the validity of the appointment of 9 persons who have been given the benefit of 25% quota from the post of Anganwadi Workers (AWW). It is submitted that the said persons do not fulfill the requirement and their initial appointments on temporary basis was also not in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the appointments of the private respondents should be interfered with and as vacancies are still existing, a direction may be issued to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. 8. Per contra, Shri Roy, learned State Counsel has submitted that the selection is of the year 2005 and a claim for appointment is made by filing this writ petition long thereafter in the year 2018. He has also submitted that the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (AFRBM) Act, 2005 has laid down restrictions in making appointments after expiry of the select list. He has also submitted that the appointments said to be made during the year 2017 were because of certain interim orders passed by this Court in writ petition instituted in time and would not, otherwise act as a precedent. 9. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 15 to 24 while endorsing the submissions of the learned State Counsel has reiterated that their appointments were done in accordance with law and the petitioner does not have any enforceable right to pursue this writ petition. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record have also been carefully examined. 11. Admittedly, the recruitment process is of the year 2005 in which, the petitioner claims to have been selected. The documents annexed to the writ petition suggest that the petitioner was in Sl. 22 in the said select list. However, with regard to the availability of vacancies, the list annexed would show that such vacancy position was up-to the year 2005-2006. The claim of the petitioner that certain appointments were made even in the year 2017 out of the said select list would not persuade this Court to pass an order for consideration of such appointment as the same would be in conflict with the AFRBM Act which has laid down an embargo for appointment from a select list which has spent its force. Even assuming that certain vacancies of the Select List of 2005 were existing, after the expiry of the select list, such vacancy are to be treated as fresh vacancies in which, all eligible candidates, as on the date, should have to be given an equal opportunity to participate which is in consonance with the principles of fairness and transparency. 12. As regards the challenge made to the appointment of 9 persons who were initially AWW of exceeding the quota of 25%, this Court is of the opinion that even assuming that a point has been made out, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner as she would not get any benefit by such interference. Further, it would not be prudent to unsettle the settled position and the appointments are almost 2 decades old. 13. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.