JUDGMENT : SUMAN SHYAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 who are also the private respondents in the other two writ petitions. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam and Ms. P.Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, are present on behalf of the official respondents. 2. Common question of law and facts are involved in all these three writ petitions. Therefore, all the three writ petitions are taken up together for consideration. 3. The writ petitioners in all the three writ petitions are serving in the Audit (Local Fund) Branch under the Government of Assam, Finance (Estt-B) Department. As per Rule 17 of the Assam Local Fund Audit Service Rules , 1995, as amended, (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1995), the writ petitioners in all the three writ petitions were eligible for being considered for promotion to the next higher rank of Audit Officer (Local Fund) upon completion of 3 years of service in their present position. Rule 17(1) of the Rules of 1995 prescribes that 75 percent of the vacancies arising in a year in the cadre of Audit Officer is to be filled up by way of promotion of Assistant Audit Officers in a departmental examination called “Assam Local Fund Audit Service (Promotion) Examination”. Accordingly, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) had issued an advertisement notice dated 03/05/2018 inviting applications for the Assam Local Fund Audit Service (Promotion) Examination for filling up 32 numbers of vacant posts of Audit Officer (Local Fund). The 32 vacancies of Audit Officers, so advertised, included 3 posts reserved for the ST(P) category and 4 posts for the ST(H) category, thus, leaving 25 posts for the general category. 4. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1995, prescribes the criteria for promotion of Audit Officers through departmental examination. As per Rule 17(2), an Assistant Audit Officer who has completed 3 years of service in the rank of Assistant Audit Officer, on the first day of the year of recruitment, would be eligible to be considered for promotion. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 03/05/2018, as many as 80 eligible candidates had submitted their candidature. As per Rule 17(2), an Assistant Audit Officer who has completed 3 years of service in the rank of Assistant Audit Officer, on the first day of the year of recruitment, would be eligible to be considered for promotion. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 03/05/2018, as many as 80 eligible candidates had submitted their candidature. Upon conclusion of the selection process, the APSC had published a list on 07/11/2019 recommending the names of 57 short listed candidates, who had passed the departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of Audit Officer. On the same day i.e. 07/11/2019, the APSC had also forwarded the names of 14 candidates who had secured exemption marks in one or more subjects. Based on the list dated 07/11/2019, the departmental authorities had filled up the 32 vacancies of Audit Officers in order of merit. 6. The 11 petitioners in WP(C) 9305/2019 and the sole writ petitioner in WP(C) 1993/2020 had participated in the aforesaid selection process conducted by the APSC based on advertisement dated 03/05/2019 but could not pass the examination. As such, their names were not included in the select list dated 07/11/2019. It is to be noted herein that although, only 32 vacancies were notified in the advertisement, yet, merit list of 57 candidates was prepared by the APSC on 07/11/2019. As such, apprehending that more than 32 notified vacancies of Audit Officers might be filled up by operating the select list dated 07/11/2019, some of the unsuccessful candidates, as writ petitioners, have approached this Court by filing the aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020 inter-alia praying for an order from the Court restraining the authorities from promoting any person from the list dated 07/11/2019 for filling up vacancies beyond the 32 advertised vacancies of Audit Officers. Due to the pendency of the writ petitions and the orders operating therein, no further promotion/appointment was made in respect of those vacancies beyond the notified 32 vacancies. 7. It appears that during the pendency of the two aforementioned writ petitions, the APSC had published another advertisement notice dated 16/09/2024 for holding Departmental (Promotion) Examination for filling up another 53 posts of Audit Officers (Local Fund) by way of promotion. The aforesaid advertisement notice was put under challenge by the 23 writ petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 apparently on the ground that since their names appeared in Sl. The aforesaid advertisement notice was put under challenge by the 23 writ petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 apparently on the ground that since their names appeared in Sl. No. 33 to 57 in the list dated 07/11/2019 earlier published by the APSC, hence, they were entitled to be promoted to these vacant posts of Audit Officer (Local Fund) based on their merit position in the list dated 07/11/2019. In other words, the writ petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 had opposed the move on the part of the department to issue fresh advertisement for filling up 53 vacancies of Audit Officers (Local Fund). 8. During the course of hearing of these writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020 has categorically raised an argument by referring to Rule 20(3) of the Assam Local Fund Audit Service Rules , 1997, to submit that as per the said Rule, the validity of the select list is only for a period of 12 months from the date of approval of the same by the Commission. According to Mr. K.N. Choudhury, since more than 12 months had lapsed since the select list was approved/published by the APSC, the same has already lost its validity. To that extent, the petitioners’ counsel has argued that no further candidate can be appointed by operating the select list dated 07/11/2019, at this point of time. As such, submits Mr. Choudhury, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 would not be maintainable in the eyes of law. 9. The departmental authorities had earlier filed affidavit in WP(C) 9305/2019 virtually opposing the prayer made in the writ petition, by contending inter-alia that since it is a case of promotion and not direct recruitment, there was no need under the Rules to declare the number of vacancies. However, taking note of the nature of controversy involved in these proceedings, this Court had passed order dated 05/11/2024 directing the authorities in the Finance Department to file an additional affidavit specifically addressing certain queries made by the Court. Consequently, on 04/01/2025, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (Estt-B) Department, had filed an additional affidavit. The statements made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit would be relevant for the purpose of these cases and, therefore, is being reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “2. Consequently, on 04/01/2025, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (Estt-B) Department, had filed an additional affidavit. The statements made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit would be relevant for the purpose of these cases and, therefore, is being reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “2. That, in the instant writ petition the Finance Department has already filed an affidavit-in-opposition and one additional affidavit. By passing the order dated 05/11/2024 the Hon’ble Court directed the Finance Department to file an additional affidavit specifically addressing the query raised by the Hon’ble Court. In compliance of the said order dated 05/11/2024, the answering deponent begs to state the following: (i) The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) was requested vide letter No. FEB 30/2016/66 dated 22/02/2017 to fill up 32 (thirty two) numbers of posts of Audit Officers by holding Departmental Promotional Examination as provided in Rule 17 of the Assam Local Fund Audit Service Rules . (ii) There was no communication from the Government to the APSC to select more candidates over and above 32 (thirty two) posts as intimated vide letter No. FEB 30/2016/66 dated 22/02/2017. (iii) APSC declared the result vide letter No. 38PSC/CON/Exam- 20/2018-19 dated 07/11/2019, with a list of 57 (fifty seven) candidates. It is not clear as to why 57 candidates were declared successful against vacancy of 32 (thirty two). (iv) As per Rule 20(3) of the Assam Local Fund Audit Service Rules “The list of departmental candidates for promotion of the cadre of Audit Officer under Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 17 shall remain valid for 12 months from the date of approval of the Commission.” Thus, it is submitted that the select list of 2019 has lost its validity. Accordingly, the Government has requested the APSC to conduct fresh examination.” 10. From a careful reading of the averments made in the additional affidavit dated 05/11/2024 filed by the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department, it is apparent that the Department had requested the APSC to furnish a select list to fill up only 32 posts of Audit Officers. Mr. Accordingly, the Government has requested the APSC to conduct fresh examination.” 10. From a careful reading of the averments made in the additional affidavit dated 05/11/2024 filed by the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department, it is apparent that the Department had requested the APSC to furnish a select list to fill up only 32 posts of Audit Officers. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, however, has maintained his original stand by contending that even through the original request of the Finance Department was to forward a list of 32 selected candidates for promotion to the post of Audit Officer (Local Fund), yet, going by the mandate of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1995, as amended, yet, it cannot be said that there was any restriction on the part of the Department to fill up vacancies beyond the 32 notified vacancies by operating the select list, subject however, to the condition that the exercise is complete within the period of validity of the select list. 11. As noted herein above, Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1995 clearly stipulates that the list of Departmental candidates will be valid for a period of 12 months from the date of approval. Rule 20 sub-rule 3 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “20(3) The list of departmental candidates for promotion of the cadre of Audit Officer under sub-rule (3) of rule 17 shall remain valid for 12 months from the date of approval of the Commission.” 12. A plain reading of Rule 20(3) leaves no room for doubt that on expiry of 12 months from the date of approval of the same by the APSC, the list of departmental candidate would lose its validity. As such, regardless of whether vacancies are available or not, no further promotion/appointment could have been made by the authorities based on the list dated 07/11/2019 after the period of 12 months from its approval by the APSC. There is no doubt in this case that the period of 12 months from the date of approval of the list by the APSC has expired long back. There is also no judicial order of the Court extending the validity of the select list. There is no doubt in this case that the period of 12 months from the date of approval of the list by the APSC has expired long back. There is also no judicial order of the Court extending the validity of the select list. If that be so, it is apparent that as long as Rule 20(3) of the Rules continues to hold the field, no promotion/appointment of Audit Officer can be made by operating the said list beyond the period of 12 months after the list was published/approved by the APSC by operating the list dated 07/11/2019. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 has appraised this Court that his clients have already assailed the validity of Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1995, as amended, by instituting WP(C) 926/2025, which is pending disposal before the Division Bench of this Court. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. I. Choudhury, no order be passed on merit of the claim of the petitioners at this stage as otherwise, the same would prejudicially affect the interest of his clients in the pending proceeding where the Rules are under challenge. 14. Since there is no controversy at the Bar that the validity of the list dated 07/11/2019, which was for a period of 12 months from the date of approval of the same by the Commission, had expired long back, it is evident that no appointment/promotion can be made by the department by operating the list dated 07/11/2019 beyond the validity period of the list. To that extent, the grievance of the petitioners in WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020 stands substantially redressed. In other words, in view of the stand taken by the department in the additional affidavit dated 05/11/2024, nothing further survives for adjudication by this Court in WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020. Therefore, these writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 15. In so far as the plea raised by the petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 is concerned, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of controversy involved in this proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that recording any finding on the merit of the plea raised in the said writ petition would impinge upon the live issues which are subjudice in WP(C) 926/2025 pending before the Division Bench. 16. 16. Since the scope of the plea raised by the writ petitioners in WP(C) 4999/2024 would be directly dependent upon the outcome of WP(C) 926/2025, hence, Registry is directed to list both the writ petitions together before the appropriate Bench, after 10(ten) days, for necessary orders. 17. This Court is conscious of the fact that an interim order dated 27/09/2024 was passed in WP(C) 4999/2024 whereby, the APSC has been restrained from publishing the results of the selection process conducted in terms of the advertisement notice dated 16/09/2024. However, the respondents have not made any prayer for vacating the order dated 27/09/2024. In view of the above, the interim order dated 27/09/2024 stand extended until further orders. Liberty is, however, granted to the respondents to apply for vacation/alteration/modification of the interim order dated 27/09/2024, if so advised. 18. With the above observations, WP(C) 9305/2019 and WP(C) 1993/2020 stand disposed of.