JUDGMENT In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Act, 1977 and also the constitution of the Ad-Hoc Committee of the District School Board, Hooghly and also the Government order, being order dated 3rd of November, 1978, which is annexure ‘F’ to the petition. it is necessary to set out the said order which is a communication dated 3rd of November, 1978 from Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal on the subject of permanent absorption of primary School teachers who worked as deputation vacancies. The said communication reads as follows : "The undersigned is directed to refer to this Deptt., Memo No.1496 Edn. (P) dated 30.8. 78 on the above subject and to state that the matter has been reviewed by Government and it has been decided that pending Government’s full examination of the entire policy regarding ultimate absorption of Deputation vacancy teachers and the mode and practice of such absorption, the final absorption of candidates who worked as primary teachers for one or more term. In deputation vacancies should be kept suspended until further orders. mean while this Deptt. G.O. No. 1496-Edn. (P) dated 30.8.78 referred to above should be treated at cancelled." 2. The petitioner also challenge the notification, being Annexure 'G' being a notification dated 31st of October, 1977 whereby the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary provision) Amendment Act, 1977 was amended. Section 3 with which the petitioners felt aggrieved reads all follows : "In Section 4 of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969, in the proviso to clause (b)-. (i) for the words "any of its officers not below the rank of a District Inspector of Schools", the word. "an ad-hoc committee consisting of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint", shall be substituted. (ii) for the words "such officer", the words "the ad-hoc committee" shall be substituted." 3. (i) for the words "any of its officers not below the rank of a District Inspector of Schools", the word. "an ad-hoc committee consisting of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint", shall be substituted. (ii) for the words "such officer", the words "the ad-hoc committee" shall be substituted." 3. The petitioners also challenge the notification dated 4th of March, 1978 whereby the ad-hoc committee consisting of certain persons whose names It is not necessary to set out herein for my present purpose were appointed as ad-hoc committee to discharge and perform all the powers duties and functions referred to in Clause (B) of the District School Board, Hooghly and the President and Vice-President thereof with effect from the date of the said publication. The petitioners asked for consequential orders restraining the defendant from giving effect to the said communication specially the communication dated 3rd of November, 1978. 4. In order to appreciate the challenge it is necessary to refer to certain facts. This petition is by 51 petitioner and is directed against the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education, the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Ad-hoc Committee, District School Board, Hooghly, the Director of Primary Education, West Bengal and the Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal as well as the State of West Bengal. The petitioners claim to have passed the School Final Examination and Higher Secondary Examination from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education more than 6 to 7 years ago and they further assert that they could not prosecute their studies any further due to property and financial difficulties and other problems. The petitioners further state that they became qualified for appointment as primary teachers and a large number of posts of primary teacher fell vacant under the District School Board, Hooghly in or about 1972 and an advertisement was made by the District School Board, Hooghly for the post of Primary teachers In the month of February 1972 in the Ananda Bazar Patrika inviting applications from suitable qualified candidates and all the petitioners applied for the posts of primary teachers having requisite qualification.. The petitioners further state that they were selected in the interview taken by the District School Board, Hooghly for the posts of primary teachers under the aforesaid School Board and that they were selected by the Selection Committee and their names were included in the panel of primary teachers of the different circles under the District School Board, Hooghly. The petitioners further assert that all of them were appointed in deputation vacancies arising out of deputation of teachers from primary school for undergoing training in junior basic training institutes from 1974 to 1978. But the petitioners were not appointed in permanent posts by the District School Board, Hooghly although, according to the petitioners, in similar circumstances a large number of candidates were appointed in permanent vacancies. The petitioners state that all of them were appointed more than once in deputation vacancies by the District School Board, Hooghly. They have annexed copies of their appointment letters in a bundle in Annexure A to the petition. The petitioners have referred to an order made by the Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal regarding absorption by appointment of primary teachers appointed in deputation vacancies on 19th December, 1974. Th. same is Annexure 'B' "From: The Director of Public Instructions, West Bengal. To : The District Inspector of Schools (pry. Edn.) District School Board, Hooghly. Sub: Instruction regarding appointment of teachers serving deputation vacancies. Ref: Mis. No. 2250 dated 4th December, 1974. The undersigned has to inform him that approved empanelled candidates appointed in deputation vacancies by the District School Boards may be absorbed in permanent posts during their service or within one year of expiry of the deputation term even if the validity of the panel where their names occur expires or a fresh panel is prepared in the meantime. Sd. For Director of Public Instruction. West Bengal. But in order to appreciate this communication it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Act. The main Act, however, which was substantially modified from time to time up to 1st of March, 1969 is the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. Under that Act, rules were framed namely. West Bengal Primary Education Rules which were again from time to time modified. By notification issued an 26th of October, 1971 Rule 3A provided as follows: "3A. The main Act, however, which was substantially modified from time to time up to 1st of March, 1969 is the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. Under that Act, rules were framed namely. West Bengal Primary Education Rules which were again from time to time modified. By notification issued an 26th of October, 1971 Rule 3A provided as follows: "3A. Panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier, for 15 months from the last date of receiving application from candidates or for 12 months from the date of its preparation, whichever is earlier. The State Government may, however extend the period of validity of a panel by a period of not exceeding 6 months". 5. By a notification issued on 8th of February, 1974 there were further modifications of the rules and the said modifications were at follows : "(i) for sub-rule (3) of rule 3B, substitute the following sub-rule, namely: (3) The Selection Committee shall send a list of names of qualified persons recommended by them to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, who may modify .or alter the list. After such modification or alteration, if any, the Director of Public Instruction shall finally prepare a panel of qualified teachers for the district." (ii) for rule 3E, substitute to the following rule namely : "3E. A panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier for twelve months from the date of its preparation, but the State Government may extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six month. When a panel is exhausted or ceases to be valid the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, shall proceed to prepare a fresh panel in accordance with the provisions of these rules." 6. It is in the light of these statutory provisions that one has to consider this communication dated 17th of December 1974 which I have set out hereinbefore. According to the petitioners, after the changed of the political party constituting the Government in the State of West Bengal in 1977 a bin was imposed by the Education Department for appointment of primary teachers which was relaxed subsequently and an order was issued by the State Government on 27th of September, 1977 which reads as follows : "The undersigned is directed to refer to his letter no. 4510 SC/P dated 7.9.77 en the above subject and to state that the ban imposed on appointment of Primary School teachers from out of panels already approved may be enlarged in case of (a) further appointment on deputation and (b) Ultimate absorption in respect of those teachers who have once before been appointment on deputation vacancies from the panel. But no new appointment on deputation from out of the panel shall be allowed." 7. The petitioners assert that thereafter the Education Department issued another order on 28th of January, 1978 which they have set out to the following effect : "Sub: Approval of appointment of teachers in deputation vacancies. The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to this Department order no. 1660-Edn (P) dated 27.9.77 on the above subject and to state that decision contained in (b) therein regarding ultimate absorption in respect of those primary teachers who have once before been appointed in deputation vacancies from the panel should be kept inoperative until further orders.” 8. Thereafter, on 30th of August 1978 the ban was withdrawn. It is not necessary to refer in actual terms to the said order. But thereafter on 3rd of November 1978 according to the petitioners the following communication was issued, From: Shri M.M. Sinha Roy, W.B.C.S. Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal. To: The Director of Primary Education, West Bengal. New Secretariat Buildings. Sub : Permanent absorption of Primary teachers who worked in deputation vacancies. The undersigned is directed to refer to his memo no. 4734-SC/F dated the 12th August. 1978 on the above subject and to state that a general law (ban) has been imposed on appointment of Primary Teacher in July, 1977. During the operation of ban an order bearing no.1000 Edn (P) dated the 27th September 1977 was issued relaxing the bar in the following two cases- (a) Further appointment of teachers in deputation vacancies in so far as teachers who have once before been appointed in such vacancies are concerned, end (b) ultimate absorption of those teachers who have once before been appointed in deputation vacancies from the panel but could not be finally absorbed. By a subsequent order no. 45-Edn. (P) dated the 29th January 1978 decision contained in (b) dated the 28th January, 1978 decision contained in (b) above was kept inoperative until final orders. 2. By a subsequent order no. 45-Edn. (P) dated the 29th January 1978 decision contained in (b) dated the 28th January, 1978 decision contained in (b) above was kept inoperative until final orders. 2. Since the general bar on appointment of teachers has since been withdrawn by a separate Government order, the orders mentioned above which was issued during the ban period are no longer in force. 3. It is hereby clarified that this Department’s order no. 1060 Edn (P) dated the 21st September 1977 and no. 45 (Edn) (P) dated the 28th January 1978 issued during the ban period are no longer in force consequent on withdrawal of the ban by a separate Government order." 9 The said communication was forwarded to all the secretaries of the District School Board. The District School Board, Hooghly, was superseded by the State Government in or about 1969 and thereafter the District Inspector of Schools. Hooghly, was authorised by the State Government to look after the administration and management of the District School Board, Hooghly. According to the petitioners, the West Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930 imposed certain duties upon the District School Board. In this connection the petitioners have referred to provisions of Section 23(g) of the said Act which authorises the board subject to this prescribed conditions to appoint and fix and pay the salaries and allowances of teachers in primary school. By virtue of the rules as modified by the notification dated 26th of October 1971 Rule 3(1) authorisies the Board to appoint teachers whether temporarily or subsequently, only from a panel of qualified teachers for the district forwarded by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal and in accordance with the directions. if any, given by him. Rule 3(2) stipulated that issuing letters of appointment the Board should ensure as far as possible that a person be appointed as a teacher in a school which was nearest to his residence. This, however, should not be construed to mean that he could not be appointed elsewhere or transferred subsequently to any other school if the Board so considers it necessary. The other provisions of the rule which is not necessary at the persons moment to refer. 10. The petitioners assert that the communication dated 30th of August, 1978 which was by the Deputy Secretary to the Government was improper and was invalid and without jurisdiction. The other provisions of the rule which is not necessary at the persons moment to refer. 10. The petitioners assert that the communication dated 30th of August, 1978 which was by the Deputy Secretary to the Government was improper and was invalid and without jurisdiction. The petitioners state that the petitioners' fate could not be kept hanging and suspended for such a long time. In the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioners complain about indiscriminate behaviour towards the petitioners. The petitioners have also submitted that Rule 3E of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1930 illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and beyond the statute which laid down that a panel of teachers for a district should remain valid for 15 month or for 12 months and the State Government might extend the validity for a period of 6 months. The petitioners have also asserted that the West Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930 and the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969 were repealed by Section 105 of the West Bengal Primary Education, 1973 was given assent to by the President of India. But it must be emphasized that the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 repealed the previous Act only from the date when the new Act was declared So have come into effect and by a notification issued on the 30th of December, 1974. It was stipulated that 1st of January, 1975 was to be the date on which the provisions of all the sections of the said Act, that is to say, the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 except Sections 77, 78, 89 and 105 should come into force in the whole of West Bengal. Therefore the whole of the old Act cannot be said to, have been repealed. The petitioners alleged that in the background of the facts and circumstances an amendment was affected by the West Bengal Legislature in respect of West Bengal Rural Primary (Temporary) Provisions Act, 1969 on October 31st 1977 by virtue of which the power of the District Inspector of Schools to look after the administration and management of the schools was taken away and the same was vested in a body on the basis of which an Ad-hoc Committee was constituted by the State Government on 4th of March, 1978 for the District School Board. In this connection it may be material to refer to the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provision) (Amendment) Act, 1977 which received the assent of the Governor and was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 31st of October, 1977 which stipulated that in place of Temporary Provisions Act, 1969 in proviso to clause (b) Section 2 of the amending Act provided al follows : - “2. In Section 4 of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969 in the proviso to clause (b)- (i) for the words, any of its officers not below the rank of a District Inspector of Schools", the words "an ad-hoc committee consisting of such numbers of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint," shall be substituted. (ii) for the words "such officer", the words "the ad-hoc committee" shall be substituted.” 11. Thereafter notification dated 4th of March, 1978 was issued constitution an ad-hoc committee consisting of certain persons for the District School Board, Hooghly. It is not necessary to set out in detail the said communication. The allegation of the petitioners are that the constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee was politically motivated to benefit the ruling party and thereafter the District Inspector of Primary Education District School Board. Hooghly as the Secretary of the Ad-hoc Committee by his notice dated 24th of April 1978 has asked for preparation of a panel for appointment of the primary teachers and issued advertisements and on that basis of the advertisement a panel has been prepared for the appointment of primary teachers. The petitioners alleged that the District School Board, Hooghly has not taken any steps for giving appointments to the petitioners who had been empanelled but were not given permanent appointments though others were. The petitioners alleged that steps were being taken for appointment about 500 teachers in the District School Board and the said committee has completed the interviews. In the premises, the petitioners challenge the said amendment of the Act, as well as the steps taken thereunder. The petitioners also felt aggrieved by the communication dated 3rd of November 1978 which I have set out hereinbefore whereby the absorption of the petitioners into vacancies as primary teacher, had been kept suspended. In the premises, the petitioners challenge the said amendment of the Act, as well as the steps taken thereunder. The petitioners also felt aggrieved by the communication dated 3rd of November 1978 which I have set out hereinbefore whereby the absorption of the petitioners into vacancies as primary teacher, had been kept suspended. It is the grievance of the petitioners that about 303 candidates wire included in the panel prepared in 1973.of whom about 100 candidates were employed preliminary as primary teachers by the District School Board, Hooghly and the rest 200 candidates were employed in the deputation vacancies from time to time by the District School Board, Hooghly of whom only 94 candidates including the petitioners have not been permanently appointed although 27 candidates who had worked in deputation vacancies were appointed permanently as primary teachers by the District School Board, Hooghly, in the month of January 1978. The petitioners assert that the communication which is annexure 'F' that is the 3rd of November 1978 which I have set out hereinbefore should not be given effect to and should be quashed and the District School Board should be directed to appoint first the unabsorbed paneled teachers before appointing any new teachers instead of the petitioner in the vacancies that have been caused in the jobs of the primary teachers Though the allegations have not been admitted and reference has been craved to the record, factually the specific allegation of facts have not been denied in the affidavits-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent. 14. As I have mentioned before, the respondents to this application are the District Inspector of Schools, Primary Education and the Deputy Secretary of the Education Department and the Ad-hoc Committee of the District School Board and the President including the State of West Bengal. On behalf or the respondents State of West Bengal and other Government officers, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of or West Bengal one Sree Labanya Kumar Banerjee has affirmed an affidavit where he has asserted that by the communication dated 3rd of November 1978 that the Government merely informed to keep the absorption of the primary teacher in suspension pending the ultimate decision on the panel. By the order dated 3rd of November 1978 an earlier order dated 30th August 1978 was cancelled and he has further asserted that the said communication was perfectly valid, legal and within jurisdiction. By the order dated 3rd of November 1978 an earlier order dated 30th August 1978 was cancelled and he has further asserted that the said communication was perfectly valid, legal and within jurisdiction. He has relied on the different provisions of the Rules and he has asserted that inasmuch as the entirety of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary) Provision. Act, 1969 had not been repealed, the State Legislature was competent to amend the law on the 31st of October, 1977 in the manner it did. He has further asserted that the petitioners were guilty of delay. On behalf of the respondents being the District School Board and the Ad-hoc Committee one Satibhusban Das has affirmed an affidavit in which he has stated that if is true that some of the teachers were appointed in permanent vacancies and some In temporary deputation vacancies arising out of deputation of teachers from Primary Schools for undergoing training in Junior Basic Training Institutes and P.T. Schools from 1974 to 1978 on a temporary basis subject to the condition that their appointments would terminate as soon as the permanent incumbent under training returned to their respective posts. He has further, asserted that the order imposing ban and the order relaxing the appointment in case of deputed teachers it appears were matters of Government policies which were within the competence of the respondent Government. He has denied the charge of mala fide made against the District School Board. He has asserted that the District School Board was properly constituted and after proper interview the panel of teachers had been prepared and there is no legal infirmity in the said panel. 13. Before I deal with the rival contentions it may be convenient to deal with two authorities of decisions upon which reliance was placed. He has asserted that the District School Board was properly constituted and after proper interview the panel of teachers had been prepared and there is no legal infirmity in the said panel. 13. Before I deal with the rival contentions it may be convenient to deal with two authorities of decisions upon which reliance was placed. Learned Advocate for the petitioners drew my attention to the well-known decision of the Home of Lords in the case of (1) Jullus v. Bishop of Oxford, 5 Appeal Cases, page 214 and he relied on the observations of Lord Chancellor at page 222 of the report where the Lord Chancellor has dealt the expression "it shall be lawful" and observed that "But there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done something in the object for which it is to be done something in the conditions under which it has to be done, something in the title of person or persons for whose benefit it has to be exercised which may couple the power with a duty and make it a duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise the power when called upon to do so”. Lord Chancellor has observed that where the power is one coupled with the duty failure to exercise that power would call for issue of the writ Mandamus in appropriate case. Learned Advocate for the petitioners also drew my attention to the observations made by Mr. Justice Amiya Kumar Mookherji in the decision in the case of (2) Kiran Sankar Deb Gupta v. State of W.B. 1976(1) C.L.J. page 357 and he drew my attention to the observations of the learned Judge at page 365 of the report which dealt with Rule 3B of the Rules framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1930 where the learned Judge had observed that about the object of Rule 3B, which authorised the Director of Public Instruction. West Bengal with the approval of the State Government to set up a Selection Committee in each district for the purpose of selecting suitable persons from amongst candidates for inclusion in the panel of qualified teachers for the district and further stipulated how the Selection Committee might hold such test including interview and thereafter what is to, happen namely the Selection Committee to send the names of qualified teachers recommended by them to the Director of Public Instruction who may modify or alter only the names as finally approved by the Director of Public Instruction should be included in the panel for the district. In considering the aforesaid rule the learned Judge observed that the object of the rule was to set up the Selection Committee in each district for the purpose of selecting persons from amongst candidates for inclusion in the panel of qualified teachers for the district. Rule 3A provided that no name should be forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of a primary teacher unless it had been included in the panel prepared in the manner provided in Rule 3B. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, it followed that without forming a panel as provided in Rule 3B there could not be any appointment of primary teacher of a District School Board. Considering the whole scope of the rules it could not be said that Rule 3B was discretionary. According to the learned Judge, the non-compliance of the rule rendered the appointment made in breach of the rule void and illegal. 14. Now, in this case admittedly it is not in dispute that the petitioners were empanelled. In this connection it may be relevant to refer to the qualifications that have been stipulated in the advertisements that had been issued. Now, in the said advertisement the minimum qualifications have been mentioned as (1) School Final pass or its equivalent or Higher Secondary pass or its equivalent, (2) Primary or junior basic training pass or its equivalent would be treated as an additional qualification, (3) the age should not be below 18 years of age on 1.4.48, and (4) his or her name must be registered with the employment exchange in the district. It is further provided that the candidates who passed School Final Examination or its equivalent upto 1970 and Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent upto 1971 might only apply to the Board directly with their Employment Exchange registration number. Other candidates are not allowed to apply direct. Their names would be obtained by the District School Board from the Employment Exchange of the district. There were certain relaxation about the schedule castes and scheduled tribes to which it is not necessary to refer for the present purpose. 15. Though the petitioners were empanelled the present petitioners have not been appointed. It is also not disputed that they have not been appointed in permanent vacancies though they had served in deputation vacancies. Strictly speaking the period of the empanelment of the petitioners has expired under Rule (3B) amended or unamended, that is to say, the petitioners’ period have been more than the 12 months from the date of preparation and also is beyond 6 months thereafter. It is also beyond 15 months from the date of its preparation. But the petitioners’ main contention is that the District Inspector of Schools who was the person authorised to make the appointments because under Rule 3 the appointments had to be made by the Selection Committee in accordance with the instruction of the Director of Public Instruction and by the communication dated 19th of December 1974, it was stipulated that approved candidates appointed in deputation vacancies in the District School Board might be absorbed in the permanent vacancies during their service or within one year of expiry of the deputation term even if the validity of the panel where the names occurred had expired or a fresh panel has been prepared in the meantime. In this connection there was, a ban of appointment of new teachers unless deputation vacancies were filled up as mentioned in the communication dated 27th or September 1977 which was however suspended by the communication dated 28th of January 1978. In this connection there was, a ban of appointment of new teachers unless deputation vacancies were filled up as mentioned in the communication dated 27th or September 1977 which was however suspended by the communication dated 28th of January 1978. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the communication dated 3rd of November 1978 which suspended further appointment of the deputationists and thereby prevented the petitioners from taking advantage of the communication dated 19th December 1974 which was set out hereinbefore and which was mandatory upon the Selection Committee in view of the Rule 3 which I have set out hereinbefore the new advertisements for preparing a fresh panel without first exhausting the existing panel of the petitioners is bad and without authority of law. In my opinion there is good deal of substance in this contention. On behalf of the respondents it was strenuously argued that as the period of empanelment has expired the petitioners could not claim any right to be appointed from the old panel and as such according to the respondents there was no ban in making the new empanelment. It was, secondly, urged that the communication dated 19th of December 1974 could not overide the mandatory provisions of the rules made under the provisions of the Act, namely, Rule (3E) which fixed the period of empanelment. It was, thirdly, urged that there was discretion against or prejudice to the petitioners because if the petitioners were qualified and competent the petitioners were entitled to apply for fresh empanelment and would be empanelled afresh and would be entitled to get appointments from the empanelment. I may incidentally point out that though in the petition various points had been taken as to the competence and the validity of the amending Act and the rules framed subsequently such points were not pressed before me. Therefore, I have to proceed on the basis of the rules as they are subject to the effect of the Government communication from time to time made on this aspect. Now, the fact that if before the absorption of the petitioners who are competent to be appointed as primary teachers are not appointed before fresh panel or fresh appointment are given from the fresh panel, is, in my mind prejudice to the petitioners self evident. Now, the fact that if before the absorption of the petitioners who are competent to be appointed as primary teachers are not appointed before fresh panel or fresh appointment are given from the fresh panel, is, in my mind prejudice to the petitioners self evident. Prejudice 'undoubtedly would be caused to the petitioners by the very fact that the petitioners would be obliged now to go through the Employment Exchange which originally the petitioners were not and from the Employment Exchange the petitioners names may not be forwarded because it is a well known fact that there is in our country a very large number of unemployed people and naturally priority would have to be given by the Employment Exchange on the basis of empanelment before forwarding names by it to the authorities concerned. Secondly, if the petitioners are empanelled again then the petitioners would naturally have to be placed along with and in some cases after the persons who would be empanelled. Therefore, the petitioners' empanelment for all these years and in fact petitioners experiences or services as working in the deputation vacancies would not ensure to any benefit to the petitioners. It is also not disputed that many of the others who had been empanelled along with the petitioners had been subsequently permanently absorbed in service while the petitioners were serving in deputation vacancies. To that extent the procedure envisaged by the new empanelment and appointment on that basis would cause prejudice to the petitioners. But the question is whether the petitioners have any right legally to be appointed. In my opinion, Rule 3E as it stands at present must be road in conjunction with any direction issued by the Director of Public Instruction in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the said rules and read in that light. In my opinion, the communication dated 19th of December 1974 should have been adhered to and should not have been suspended by any subsequent purported order. After all that was an order whereby the rights of the petitioners for absorption were being suspended and taking advantage of the suspension the petitioners had been deprived of being appointed in permanent vacancies which they had by the communication dated 19th of December, 1974. After all that was an order whereby the rights of the petitioners for absorption were being suspended and taking advantage of the suspension the petitioners had been deprived of being appointed in permanent vacancies which they had by the communication dated 19th of December, 1974. Reading therefore the said communication in the light or Rule 3E I hold that the petitioners who are otherwise qualified to be appointed as primary teachers excluding the new qualification enjoined for empanelment by virtue of the advertisement issued subsequently should first be appointed in permanent vacancies of primary teachers in posts which are lying vacant provided they are within age and are willing to serve in terms of the letters of appointment. As the panel has admittedly expired, after exhausting the number of petitioners who can be so absorbed the rest of the posts. In the vacancies of primary teachers may be filled in by appointing persons from the empanelled teachers pursuant to the new advertisement. This in my opinion will be in consonance with the rules in conformity with the directions from time to time issued and will do justice to all concerned. I direct the respondents to act in the light or the aforesaid directions. Let appropriate writs issue accordingly and until the petitioners are so absorbed the new appointments should not be given. The Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will, however, be no order al to costs.