JUDGMENT Sen, J. An application for an Interlocutory order filed by the appellants in F.M.A.T. No. 1601/85 came up hearing before us. Since the dispute raised in the original proceeding out of which the above appeal arises is required to be adjudicated for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory application, we decided to hear the appeal and the application together. We keep it on record that we further heard an inter-connected writ petition bearing C.O. No. 14983(W)/83 because in our opinion, the two matters could not be left for independent adjudication. That will appear clear from the facts and circumstances now being set out hereinafter. 2. The appellants in F.M.A.T. No. 1601/85 are the three writ petitioners Narayan Chandra Ghosh an others (hereinafter referred to as Narayan Chandra Ghosh and others) whose writ petition was summarily dismissed by the learned trial Judge by an Order dated May 14, 1985. They are admittedly group 'D' employees in the office of the Controller of Weights & Measures under the Government of West Bengal. Sometimes prior to 1983, 19 Lower Division Assistants were given promotion to higher ranks resulting in consequential 19 vacancies of Lower Division Assistants in the office of the Controller of Weights & Measures. Though 19 people were so offered promotion, two of them did not accept promotional appointment and as a result, the consequential vacancies came down to 17. Of these 17, three posts were filled up by selection from the panel of candidates earlier constituted by the Director of National Employment Services and the Regional Employment Exchange, Calcutta. The net result was that 14 posts fell vacant in the category of Lower Division Assistants in the office of the Controller of Weights & Measures. The present dispute relates to the filing up of these posts. 3. It is not in dispute that under the Government decision dated April 24, 1980, "qualified departmental candidates may also be considered for appointment in higher posts along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges provided such departmental candidates fulfil the conditions of eligibility as may be laid down in the relevant rules of recruitment prescribed for the posts" (vide-Labour Department Memo No. 8 EMP dated 24th April, 1980). 4. 4. The appellants Narayan Chandra Ghosh and others, who were serving in the very department in group 'D' claimed that, since they fulfil the other conditions of eligibility, they were entitled to be considered for the purpose of filling up the aforesaid 14 vacancies in the posts of Lower Division Assistant under the aforesaid decision of the State Government dated April 24, 1980. 5. Since such departmental candidates were to be considered along with candidate sponsored by the Employment Exchange, a question was raised as to whether outside candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, who had earlier served the department in casual vacancies on daily wages, should be considered for the purpose of filling up the aforesaid posts of Lower Division Assistants. If they are to be so considered, they are to be considered without fresh sponsoring by the Employment Exchange though such fresh sponsoring was needed on the terms of the Government decision dated April 24, 1980, as aforesaid. 6. About 300 persons sponsored by the Employment Exchanges had rendered casual services in the department as ex-enumerators and job-workers. Naturally they were aspiring to be absorbed in the permanent vacancies in the department and they were making representations for being considered for such regular appointment. 7. In that background the department put up a proposal on October 3, 1983, in the form a memorandum. They entire context of this memo is to be found as Annexure 'E', page 96 of the writ petition in C.O. No. 14983(W)/83. To refer to this memorandum in short in paragraph 4 it was pointed out that of the 14 vacancies to be filled up, two vacancies must go for promotional quota for group 'D' and the balance 12 is to be filled up out of enumerators and job-workers, that is, the casual employees though of those 12 posts, six were reserved for scheduled castes and tribes. In paragraph 5 of this memorandum the department put up the following proposal, namely :- "(a) The Enumerators and Job-workers previously sponsored by the Employment Exchanges be considered for appointment in the posts of L.D. Clerks which fell vacant due to the promotion of L.D. Clerks to the post of Inspectors of Weights & Measures. In paragraph 5 of this memorandum the department put up the following proposal, namely :- "(a) The Enumerators and Job-workers previously sponsored by the Employment Exchanges be considered for appointment in the posts of L.D. Clerks which fell vacant due to the promotion of L.D. Clerks to the post of Inspectors of Weights & Measures. (b) The Enumerators and Job-workers be also considered for appointment in the resultant vacancies of Typists and Group 'B' and other category of staff who may be promoted/absorbed in the posts of L.D. Clerks in conformity with Government order and circulars. (c) That a panel of 19 persons be prepared out of Enumerators and Job-workers previously sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the purpose of filing up of existing and future vacancies and that the panel may remain valid for a period of one year." 8. On November 7, 1983, the State Cabinet approved the aforesaid proposal put forward by the department. In the meantime, eleven persons, who had earlier served as casual enumerators and job-workers, made a representation that they may be given appointment in the aforesaid 14 vacancies as Lower Division Assistants. The State Government, however, by their letter dated November 18, 1983, overruled the claim of these 11 persons for outright appointment. They made a fresh representation on November 18, 1983, and the Government forwarded the said representation to the Controller for consideration of their case in accordance with the Cabinet decision. 9. In that background, on December 1, 1983, the Controller of Weights & Measures invited applications for holding a test to constitute a panel in accordance with the Government decision dated April 24, 1980, subject to the modifications as per Cabinet decision dated November 7, 1983. 10. Those 11 persons, who aspired to obtain outright appointment in the eleven out of fourteen vacancies, felt dis-satisfied when they were given an opportunity to appear at the test for empanelment as a condition precedent to the appointment claimed by them. They moved a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.O. No. 14983(W)/83 20, 1983, they obtained an interim order to the effect "the examination is to be held and all formalities are to be completed but no letter of appointment is to be issued until further orders of this Court. They moved a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.O. No. 14983(W)/83 20, 1983, they obtained an interim order to the effect "the examination is to be held and all formalities are to be completed but no letter of appointment is to be issued until further orders of this Court. The petitioners shall be entitled to appear in the interview concerned without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties". 11. Those eleven persons were accordingly invited by the Controller to participate in the test for enrollment but that offer was rejected. That was rejected in writing on January 2, 1984. The test was held on January 8, 1984 and a panel was constituted by the Controller. 12. The panel so constituted was sent to the State Government by the Controller and it appears from the affidavit of the Controller that the panel so framed had the approval of the State Government. It was so approved on June 15, 1984. 13. At this stage, things took a wrong turn. Those eleven persons who were the petitioners in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 moved an application for Contempt against the Controller for alleged violation of the order of this Court dated May 11, 1984, passed in the aforesaid C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983. Ostensibly, on the conduct of the Controller, we find nothing to show that he either intended or did violate the court's order as aforesaid in any manner. Be that as it may, on this contempt application the Controller was made to appear before the Court under a threat of contempt. Without specifically deciding the issue which awaited adjudication on the writ petition itself, a claim was put forward by those eleven persons that they should outright be given appointment against eleven out of fourteen vacancies proposed to be filled up. The learned Advocate-General was made to appear to explain the effect of the Cabinet decision vis-a-vis the claim put forward by those eleven persons and it is very unfortunate that the learned Advocate-General gave his views which may be set out hereunder:- "I had discussion with the present Controller and who expressly stated that he never had any intention of not implementing the Cabinet decision and he requested to me as to whether he should issue appointment letters to persons out of the Panel. As per direction given to me by the Hon'ble Mr. As per direction given to me by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Basak, I am of opinion that the Panel which had been prepared in which some departmental candidates were called for examination is not proper, I have to refer at page 18 of the Main File bearing No. MS/1E-42/82 of C.I.W.M. Department in which the following is stated "the decision of the State Government conveyed to him under this Departmental Memo No. 3217-CI/WM dated 7.11.1983 was taken at the highest level and the same override, all other considerations." In this view of the matter and a further order which also states "other issues which are not concerned by the present decision should not be mixed up with this case". I am, therefore, of the opinion that the previous Controller did not understand the import of the Cabinet decision. I would, therefore, place this matter before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Basak with only this observation that a Panel of 19 persons will have to be constituted afresh only with the enumerators and job-workers sponsored by the Employment Exchange including the petitioners which was before the Cabinet and the Cabinet took the above decision. The question whether they appeared in the examination or not Panel has been prepared as per the order of the Cabinet the Controller shall make appointment from the said Panel having regard to seniority. Sd/- S. K. Acharyya Advocate General of West Bengal 27th February, 1985." 14. We have said the opinion of the learned Advocate-General to be unfortunate only because the Government itself does not adhere to the said view nor does this Court. Even so in this opinion the learned Advocate-General expressed the view that a panel of 19 persons have to be constituted afresh from amongst the enumerators and job-workers obviously excluding the departmental candidates who claimed a quota out of vacancies by virtue of the Government decision dated April 24, 1980, referred to hereinbefore subject to the modification made by the Cabinet decision. In our opinion, the trouble lies in finding out the true import of the Cabinet decision. As we will presently show the Cabinet decision never intended to override the basic principle incorporated in the Government decision dated April 24, 1980 which provided that vacancies should be shared between departmental candidates and direct recruits in the manner indicated by the aforesaid decision of the Government itself. 15. As we will presently show the Cabinet decision never intended to override the basic principle incorporated in the Government decision dated April 24, 1980 which provided that vacancies should be shared between departmental candidates and direct recruits in the manner indicated by the aforesaid decision of the Government itself. 15. Such an opinion having been expressed by the learned Advocate-General the Controller re-constituted a fresh panel of 19 candidates on April 11, 1985. This he did not withstanding the fact that the earlier panel constituted by him had already been approved by the State Government on June 15, 1984 and no Court or other authority had set aside the said panel. 16. This panel of 19 so constituted by the Controller under the advice of the learned Advocate-General did not serve the purpose of all the 11 persons because only 3 amongst them found their way in the panel by virtue of their seniority. At this stage it appears rather very strange to us that on May 15, 1985, the Controller issued letters of appointment in favour of 11 persons who were the petitioners in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983. It defeats our intelligence how he could have issued such orders of appointment. In his affidavit dated 27.5.85 the Controller has been candid enough to explain why and how he did issue the orders of appointment in favour of 11 persons. We better set out what he says in his affidavit in paragraph 5. (xxii) "This deponent according to the advice of the learned Adv.-General prepared a panel of 19 persons out of ex-enumerators and job-workers having regard to seniority, but this panel did not include three of the Writ petitioners because of the question of seniority. This panel was placed before His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Basak on 11.4.85 but taken exception to by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners and the learned Judge agreeing with him returned the same without passing any order of disapproval. (xxiii) This deponent states that the learned Judge was threatening every day that this deponent would have to sign necessary papers sitting in Jail and making other threatening remarks. (xxiv) Thereafter considering the views of His Lordship, the learned Advocate-General stated before the Court that the eleven petitioners would be given priority in the matter of appointment arid the matter was adjourned for the day. (xxiv) Thereafter considering the views of His Lordship, the learned Advocate-General stated before the Court that the eleven petitioners would be given priority in the matter of appointment arid the matter was adjourned for the day. (xxv) On the advice of the learned Advocate-General a fresh panel was then prepared giving priority to the eleven writ petitioners and produced before the Court on the next day. The said panel specifically mentioned "that appointment be given to the candidates empanelled subject to police verification and medical examination which are pre-requisites for appointment to Government service". Exception was taken on the question of those pre-requisites. This deponent was directed to affirm an affidavit on the said question of pre-requisites. The said affidavit was duly affirmed on May 3, 1985 and placed before the Learned Judge on May 6, 1985. (xxvi) On May 14, 1985 when the matter was taken up for hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the Writ Petitioners submitted that the said pre-requisites for appointment was a mere plea for delay, and showed the learned Judge a letter purported to be a notice that an application touching the proposed appointments was going to be moved before Appellate Court, whereupon the learned Judge directed this deponent to produce in court the very next day, the letter of appointment for the Writ Petitioners. The said order was complied with and under orders of the court the learned Advocate on record for the Writ Petitioners received them and acknowledged receipt thereof." 17. It is true that the orders recorded in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 do not indicate any of these proceedings but we have no manner doubt that the orders of appointment so issued by the Controller were not the voluntary act on his part. It is quite explicit to us that since the very beginning the Controller was disputing the claim put forward up by those 11 persons in the aforesaid writ petition. He had drawn affidavit-in-opposition to be filed on behalf of the State to contest the claim and the said affidavit too was approved by the state Government itself. Moreover, it would appear from the letter of the Government dated June 15, 1984 that the Government did not approve at any point of time giving any preferential treatment in favour of those 11 persons. Moreover, it would appear from the letter of the Government dated June 15, 1984 that the Government did not approve at any point of time giving any preferential treatment in favour of those 11 persons. To quote the first paragraph of the aforesaid correspondence with the State Government "there was no intention or instruction from the end of the State Government for giving Sri Probir Kumar Roy and 10 others the petitioners' appointment under the Weights and Measures Organization or according any preferential treatment towards selection for appointment." It is, therefore, plainly clear that the Controller was acting upon an apprehension of being held guilty of contempt by this Court if he had not accepted the claim of the Writ Petitioners, i.e. those 11 persons. It was primarily due to the fact that the learned Advocate-General conceded the said position even before the adjudication of the Rule at the stage of the contempt proceedings, but erroneously. 18. Just when the Controller had framed the second panel on April 11, 1985 and apprehending that those 11 persons, who were the petitioners in the earlier writ petition, would be given out of way appointment in respect of 11 out of 14 vacancies. Narayan Chandra Ghosh and others moved a writ petition which is by way of counter move to the earlier writ petition. The latter writ petition was registered C.O. No. 4228(W) of 1985. This writ petition came up for hearing before Basak, J. on May 14, 1985 and according to the Controller's affidavit the court had directed him to come with appointment letters in favour of those 11 persons and the writ petitions were summarily dismissed. The appointment in favour of those 11 persons followed on the day following, namely May 15, 1985. 19. Since in neither of the two writ petitions the real issue raised between the parties had at all be adjudicated we thought it proper to decide the said issue by hearing those two matters analogously and that we have done. The real point at issue is what exactly is the effect of the Cabinet decision dated November 7, 1983. We have indicated hereinbefore that necessary proposal was put forward by the department in a memorandum. In paragraphs 1 to 3 of that memorandum the department pointed out how the vacancies accrued. The real point at issue is what exactly is the effect of the Cabinet decision dated November 7, 1983. We have indicated hereinbefore that necessary proposal was put forward by the department in a memorandum. In paragraphs 1 to 3 of that memorandum the department pointed out how the vacancies accrued. In paragraph 4 it was pointed out how the resultant vacancies are to be filed having regard to the usual quotas and reservations. Having done so, in paragraph 5 of the memorandum, set out hereinbefore, the department proposed that the enumerators and job workers who were previously sponsored by the Employment Exchange may be considered for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistants and also for appointment in the vacancies of typists and Group 'D' who in their turn may be promoted as Lower Division Assistants and it was suggested that for filing up such vacancies as also future vacancies a panel of 19 persons be prepared out of enumerators and job-workers who were previously sponsored by the Employment Exchange. This proposal was approved by the Cabinet. But, in our opinion, it is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition bearing C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 that by this Cabinet decision any preferential treatment or allotment of vacancies in their favour was sanctioned by the Cabinet far less can it be said to be any authority for a claim as put forward by the said petitioners, namely, that they will be outright appointed without any empanelment. It will he pertinent to note that there was well-settled procedure for appointment to such vacancies and to government decision dated April 24, 1980 confers as quota out of these vacancies in favour of the qualified departmental candidates. They, therefore, cannot be excluded from consideration in the matter of filling up these 19 or 14 vacancies as claimed by the petitioners in the said writ petition. The true effect of the Cabinet sanction was that instead of inviting candidates to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange to be considered along with the departmental candidates the enumerators and job-workers who were previously sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who had rendered casual services, may be considered as candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The true effect of the Cabinet sanction was that instead of inviting candidates to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange to be considered along with the departmental candidates the enumerators and job-workers who were previously sponsored by the Employment Exchange and who had rendered casual services, may be considered as candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Cabinet expressly approved the proposal that a panel of 19 persons out of such enumerators and job workers is to be constituted for the purpose of appointing persons out of that panel to fill up not only the existing vacancies but also future vacancies and also vacancies of typists and group 'D' categories as and when people from those groups are promoted as Lower Division Assistants. There is inherent indication in paragraph 5 itself which is to be found in clause (b) that the Cabinet contemplated that some of the typists and group 'D' people will go up as Lower Division Assistants and the resulting vacancies were, therefore, directed to be filled from amongst the enumerators and job-workers. In our opinion, paragraph 5, which obtained the approval of the Cabinet must be read in the context of paragraph 4 and not independent of paragraph 4 as suggested by Mr. Moitra. In paragraph 4 it has been clearly pointed out that out of 14 vacancies available two is to go in favour of group 'D' employees. The balance 12 is to be filled out of enumerators and job-workers subject to a reservation of those posts for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Such being the position it is difficult to uphold the contention as put forward by Mr. Moitra that under the Cabinet sanction all the existing vacancies of Lower Division Clerks were given to enumerators and job-workers so that departmental candidates cannot put any claim in respect of any of these posts. This position is further made clear by subsequent correspondence between the Controller and the State Government. We have indicated hereinbefore that those 11 persons who moved the writ petition registered as C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1993 put forward a claim in a representation for appointment in these existing vacancies. The Controller in his turn sought for clarification from the State Government whether they can claim any preferential treatment. We have indicated hereinbefore that those 11 persons who moved the writ petition registered as C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1993 put forward a claim in a representation for appointment in these existing vacancies. The Controller in his turn sought for clarification from the State Government whether they can claim any preferential treatment. That was specifically over-ruled which establishes beyond doubt that the Government never intended that all the vacancies had been reserved for these enumerators and job-workers or that 11 out of them could claim any preferential treatment. It is very unfortunate that the true import of the Cabinet decision was not understood in this court at the stage when the Controller was made to revise his earlier panel and issue that appointment letters in favour of those 11 persons. The learned Advocate-General too failed to appreciate the true import. 20. We keep it on record that even at the stage of bearing before this Court we called upon the learned Standing Counsel to satisfy us on the basis of any subsequent decision of the Cabinet that what was conceded by the learned Advocate-General before the court was really in consonance with she disputed Cabinet decision Mr. Chatterjee has been fair enough to place before us a letter dated July 4, 1985 written by the Chief Minister himself which clearly supports the view we are taking and overrides the concession made by the learned Advocate-General by mistake. This being the position, the petitioners in the second writ petition, namely, Narayan Chandra Ghose and others have a good case when they challenged the second panel constituted by the Controller in course of the proceeding before this Court. Such a panel is not in accordance with law. Firstly, because it is based upon incorrect interpretation of the Cabinet decision referred to hereinbefore and secondly because even if a fresh panel was to be constituted that would have required a fresh selection from amongst that enumerators and job-workers who were 300 in number. In any event it is difficult for us to uphold the validity of the appointment made by the Controller on May 15, 85 in favour of the 11 writ petitioners in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 because such appointment were mace contrary to law. In any event it is difficult for us to uphold the validity of the appointment made by the Controller on May 15, 85 in favour of the 11 writ petitioners in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 because such appointment were mace contrary to law. Even if we assume that all the vacancies were reserved for the enumerators and job-workers there is no reason why 11 out of 300 such candidates should be merely initiating a contempt proceeding in this court obtain orders of appointment in their favour without a fresh selection from amongst the other similar candidates. Necessarily we must over-rule the claim put forward by these 11 persons as petitioners in writ petition rearing C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 wherein they put forward a claim that under the disputed cabinet decision they acquired preferential claim to the existing vacancies. 21. In the result, the appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 1601 of 1985 succeeds and is allowed. The order dated May 14, 1985, passed by the trial Court summarily dismissing the appellant's writ petition bearing C.O. Number 4228(W) of 1985 is not set aside. That writ petition succeeds and is allowed. All proceedings initiated by the Controller since after June 15, 1984, is set aside and in particular we set aside the orders of appointment in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 of this appeal made on May 15, 1985. The writ petition moved by the said respondents as petitioners in C.O. No. 14983(W) of 1983 fails and is dismissed. The Controller is now directed to give appointment to the departmental candidates on the basis of the panel which he constituted on June 15, 1984, but since some of the enumerators and job-workers did not participate in the selection proceeding upon a mistaken idea that they had a preferential right of appointment outright, we would direct the Controller to constitute a fresh panel of 19 persons out of enumerators and job-workers in terms of the Cabinet decision referred to hereinbefore. Such panel when constituted would remain valid for one year and appointment to such enumerators and job-workers would be made out of that panel so also in respect of group 'D'. The two writ petitions and the appeal are disposed of accordingly. 21. Let the letter of the Chief Minister dated July 4, 1985, be kept on the record. Such panel when constituted would remain valid for one year and appointment to such enumerators and job-workers would be made out of that panel so also in respect of group 'D'. The two writ petitions and the appeal are disposed of accordingly. 21. Let the letter of the Chief Minister dated July 4, 1985, be kept on the record. F.M.A.T. No. 1605 of 1985 The order passed in F.M.A.T. No. 1601 of 1985 will govern this appeal and the appeal is accordingly disposed of on the same terms. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Controller of Weights and Measures. The prayer for interim stay of the order is refused. Mukherjee, J. : I agree.