ORDER It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners had registered their names with the District Employment Exchange, Krishnanagar, Nadia (hereinafter referred to as the said Exchange). The petitioner no. 1 got his name registered with the Exchange on 14th May, 1977 and the petitioner no. 2 got his name registered with the said Exchange on 25th August, 1978. The petitioners received call for interview for the post of 'D'-Group Staff (Peon) for the office of Collectorate, Nadia, Krishnanagar under office Memo. No. 638(287) Extt. dated 24th February, 1988 although the petitioners did not apply for appointment for the said post. The petitioners appeared at the said interview held on 26th March, 1989. Copies of the said Memo dated 24th February, 1989 have been annexed to the writ petition. On 1st April, 1989 a list of names of candidates which included the names of the petitioners were published and appeared on the Notice Board of the respondent no. 2. On enquiry the petitioners came to know that another list was published earlier and the said earlier list as well as this list includes the names of those who have been selected for the panel prepared for such posts concerned. Thereafter the petitioners received Memo. No. 3207(8)/Estt. dated 7th June, 1989 from the office of the Collectorate, Nadia whereby the petitioners were requested to meet Nazarath Deputy Collector, Nadia in his office chamber at 12-00 noon on 20th June, 1989 with original School Leaving Certificate, Caste Certificate, if any, Registration Card of Employment Exchange along with a set of xerox copy of such papers positively. On 20th June, 1989 the petitioners were directed to appear before Superintendent, District Hospital, Nadia, Krishnanagar for medical examination and also to produce attested copies of School Leaving Certificate. Accordingly the medical examination was held and the reports thereof issued by the Superintendent, District Hospital, Nadia was submitted before the Collectorate authority on 21st June, 1989 along with other requisites. The petitioners thereafter submitted Verification Reports (V.R.) duly filled in before the authority concerned. Xerox copies of the said reports have also been annexed. Accordingly the medical examination was held and the reports thereof issued by the Superintendent, District Hospital, Nadia was submitted before the Collectorate authority on 21st June, 1989 along with other requisites. The petitioners thereafter submitted Verification Reports (V.R.) duly filled in before the authority concerned. Xerox copies of the said reports have also been annexed. Subsequently on enquiry the petitioners came to know from the office of the said Collectorate that the said office has sent the name of the candidates to the Exchange for confirmation and 5 out of 7 candidates, whose medical tests were taken and whose names had been sent after the said medical test have been returned from the said Exchange as confirmed. The names of the petitioners were, however, not confirmed by the said Exchange although the names of the petitioners were sent from the said Exchange itself to the Collectorate authority as fit and suitable candidates for the said post. The petitioners have come to know that the rest of the candidates of the second panel published on 1st April, 1989 which included the names of the petitioners were given appointment before the end of 30th September, 1989 which is the last date of the validity period of the said panel. The period of validity of the said panel was, however, extended by the authority for further period of 6 months i.e. upto 31st March, 1990. It is the case of the petitioners that in anticipation of getting the appointment for the said posts they resigned from their existing service inasmuch as they reasonably expected that since they have been duly selected and passed the medical test they would be given appointment to the said posts. It has been contended that since they have been successful in the interview and they have been selected there is no reason why appointment should not be given to them. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 being the affidavit of Milan Kumar Dey affirmed on 22nd January, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said affidavit). In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit it has been stated as follows: "In particular, I say that the petitioners had submitted all the requisite documents as mentioned but after verification of Registration Card of the Employment Exchange it was noticed that the date of seniority and the date of registration was at variance. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit it has been stated as follows: "In particular, I say that the petitioners had submitted all the requisite documents as mentioned but after verification of Registration Card of the Employment Exchange it was noticed that the date of seniority and the date of registration was at variance. I say that on previous occasion during filling up those vacancies this sort of verification was detected in case of 14 candidates and the matter was sent to Deputy Director, Employment Exchange, Krishnanagar for examination and sending a report in this regard. The report from the Deputy Director, Employment Exchange, was received with the comment that in case of 5 candidates, submission of their names was on the basis of false seniority fraudulently noted against their names in Employment Exchange Register and it was recommended that their case of appointment should not be considered. I say that District Magistrate, Nadia also wrote a D. O. letter to Director of Employment, West Bengal mentioning such irregularities in sending the names by Employment Exchange. I say that in reply Director, N. E. S. in his D. O. No 4C-50/82/19918 A(3), dated 12.6.89 pointed out that it was considered by him that the submission of the names of the petitioners was on the basis of false seniority and be taken as void-ab-initio. I say that in the present case the matter was referred to Deputy Director, Employment Exchange for examination and sending a report in case of 4 candidates where such variation was detected. In reply the Deputy Director, Employment Exchange, Krishnanagar, Nadia informed vide Memo. No. C-1/89/23-7273 dated 18/19.7.1989 that the case of the petitioners namely Sri Bikash Lal Dey and Sri Sandip Chowdhury was not in order and hence their cases have not been considered for appointment, the V. R. submitted by them was not sent to S. P., D. I. B., Nadia for verification of their antecedents." 2. It has, however, been admitted in the said affidavit that the other persons in the said second panel having no irregularity was called for giving appointment. The only reason for not giving the appointment to the petitioners is the alleged fact that the names of the petitioners sent by the Employment Exchange authority were not in order of seniority. It has, however, been admitted in the said affidavit that the other persons in the said second panel having no irregularity was called for giving appointment. The only reason for not giving the appointment to the petitioners is the alleged fact that the names of the petitioners sent by the Employment Exchange authority were not in order of seniority. The Xerox copy of letter of Deputy Director of Employment Exchange to the District Magistrate, Nadia, Krishnanagar is annexed to the writ petition. The said letter contains the findings of the Deputy Director with regard to the registration of names of the petitioners being Item Nos. 2 and 4 of the said letter which are set out hereinbelow: "2. Sri Bikash Lal Dey, S/o Sri Dhirendra Kr. Dey, Regn. No. K0/386/77. N.C.O. No. X02.10. The appellant is a registrant of D.E.E., Krishnanagar. As per Book Record of Registration (X-63), Shri Dey registered his name on 14.5.77 under Regn. No. K0/386/77, N.C.O. No. X02.10 as a Madhyamik Pariksha appeared candidate. No previous seniority was indicated against his name. X-63 Register dated 15.9.76 was also checked up to ascertain whether the applicant had any previous seniority in registration but no entry in the name of Shri Dey was found on that date. It seems that false registration seniority was fraudulently noted in the submission list to bring the candidate within the purview of selection. The inclusion of the name of Shri Dey, therefore, appears to be not in order. 4. Sri Sandip Chowdhury, S/o Sri M. R. Chowdhury, Regn. No. KO/2997/78, N. C. O. No. X02, 10 The applicant is a registrant of D. E. E, Krishnanagar. As per Book Record of registration (X-63), Sri Chowdhury registered his name on 25.8.78 as a Class VIII passed candidate under Regn. No. KO/2997/78, N. C. O. No. X02.10. No previous seniority of registration was indicated against his name. Entries in X-63 dated 17.9.74 was also checked up to ascertain whether the applicant had any previous seniority in registration but no entry in the name of Sri Chowdhury was found on that date. It seems that false registration seniority was fraudulently noted in the submission list against his name to bring the candidate within the purview of selection. The inclusion of the name of Shri Chowdhury, therefore, appears to be not in order." 3. It seems that false registration seniority was fraudulently noted in the submission list against his name to bring the candidate within the purview of selection. The inclusion of the name of Shri Chowdhury, therefore, appears to be not in order." 3. It is admitted position that the names of the petitioners were forwarded by the concerned Employment Exchange. The petitioners appeared at the selection test and also in the interview and became successful at such tests and their names were declared in the panel prepared for absorption. Under normal circumstances, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed against the vacancies. There was no reason to refer the matter back to the concerned Employment Exchange for verification. That apart it also appears from the letter of Deputy Director of Employment Exchange to District Magistrate, Nadia, Krishnanagar stating therein that false registration seniority was fraudulently noted in the submission list to bring the candidate within the purview of selection and as such the names of the petitioners does not appear to be in order. But no particulars of such alleged false registration seniority or of the fraud has been shown. It dues not also appear that the records of the concerned Employment Exchange has been corrected or rectified accordingly. On the basis of the letter subsequently received the selection already made cannot be reopened. 4. In the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India & ors. reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1831 two candidates selected for the appointment in judicial service against the vacancies reserved for SC and ST in 1980 were refused appointment for the reason that two candidates who were wrongly excluded from the reserved appointments of 1979 had to be accommodated in the merit list of 1980 and that as per the quota fixed on the basis of the qualified candidates for the general seats, vacancies in reserved categories were not available. The Supreme Court declared such refusal of appointment to the petitioners as invalid. The facts involved in the aforesaid decision are that the petitioners appeared for the examination and passed it through by relaxation of minimum standard prescribed for passing the examination. They were then asked to appear at the viva voce test conducted by the selection committee which they did. The facts involved in the aforesaid decision are that the petitioners appeared for the examination and passed it through by relaxation of minimum standard prescribed for passing the examination. They were then asked to appear at the viva voce test conducted by the selection committee which they did. Since only seven open candidates and four Scheduled Caste candidates qualified in these tests a merit list of eleven candidates as against sixteen vacancies were advertised. Dal Chand Anand who is petitioner in writ petition no. 2962 of 1981 was 10th in the merit list while Prem Prakash who is petitioner in writ petition no. 4480 of 1980 was 11th in that list. They were respectively 3rd and 4th in the merit list amongst the 4 Schedule Caste candidates. Since they did not figure in the final list of candidates selected by the administrator they have tiled the petitions to challenge their exclusion and non-appointment. The counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Assistant Registrar of the Delhi High Court states that 6th competitive examinations at which the petitioners appeared was held in 1980, 16 vacancies were notified out of which 11 were for open candidates, two for Scheduled Castes find 3 for Scheduled Tribes. Two out of the three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes were interchangeable in the sense that if candidates from Scheduled Tribes were not available those vacancies could be added to the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates. The counter-affidavit of the High Court contains a candid admission in paragraph 17 that when in 1980 and 1981 the High Court examined the question of reservation of vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes right from the stage of initial constitution of service in 1971 it found that "there was apparently a violation of statutory Rules and the vacancies had been wrongly calculated by the Registrar of the High Court". The High Court rectified its error by recommending the appointment of 2 Scheduled Castes candidates for the vacancies from amongst the candidates who had qualified in the 1979 competitive examination but who on account of a mistaken calculation were not appointed to the reserved seats. The factual position which emerges out of the averments in the writ petitions and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court is that though 16 vacancies were advertised only 11 vacancies could possibly be filled up. The factual position which emerges out of the averments in the writ petitions and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court is that though 16 vacancies were advertised only 11 vacancies could possibly be filled up. The reason is that only 11 candidates passed the competitive examination. Seven out of these 11 had competed for open seals while four had competed for seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes. If the four reserved seats could be filled up by the appointment thereto of candidates who appeared, in the 1980 examination there would be no difficulty in accommodating the petitioners because they are 10th and 11th in the merit list of 1980. Normally vacancies which are intended to be filled by holding an examination in any particular year are filled from amongst candidates who had appeared for the examination. The situation in this case is, however complicated by the fact that two Scheduled Caste candidates, Ajaib Singh and Ram Swarup who had appeared for the competitive examination in the previous year that is in 1979 were wrongly denied appointments. They had passed the examination and reserved vacancies were available in which they could and ought to have been appointed. Ajaib Singh filed a writ petition in this Court (No. 312 of 1980) which was allowed by us by an order dated September 2, 1981. That order reads thus: "We are informed that the Delhi High Court has decided in a Full Court meeting to recommend the names of the petitioner Ajaib Singh and another candidate Rani Swarup for appointment to the post of which they had applied namely the post of the Sub-Judge. The duration of the panel which was prepared for the year 1979 expired on August 16, 1980. That makes it necessary to direct that the names of the petitioner Ajaib Singh and the other candidate Ram Swarup should be included in the panel for the year 1979 and the appointment of these persons be made by the Delhi Administration despite the expiration of the period of that panel." The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court shows that the first two seats from out of four seats which were available to the Scheduled Caste candidates in the year 1980 have been allotted to Ajaib Singh and Ram Swarup subject to the result of the writ petition. In this connection the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 11 of the said judgment at page 1835 as under. "It is ironical that the rectification of injustice done to some two persons should result in injustice to two others. But that is exactly what has happened in this case as if to illustrate that one man's food is another man's poison. The condition of the High Court is that though the petitioners were in the merit list of 11 persons for the year 1980 they could not be appointed as Sub-Judge because Ajaib Singh and Ram Swarup who were wrongly excluded from the reserved appointments of 1979 had to be accommodated in the merit list of 1980 and after adjusting them against the reserved vacancies of 1980 no reserved vacancies were left for the candidates who were placed in the merit list of 1980. When in furtherance of the decision taken by the Full Court meeting of the High Court we directed on September 2, 1981 that the two candidates of 1979 must be included in the 1979 panel and appointed as Sub-Judges despite the expiry of the duration of that panel little did we realise and it was not so stated before us that the appointment of those two candidates of 1979 will mean the ouster of these two candidates of 1980. Such a strange result is to be avoided if not at all costs at least within the framework of the Rules and the administrative instructions governing this matter. Justice to one group at the expense of injustice to another is perpetuation of injustice in some form or the other." 5. There is no reason why the said principles should not be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. In the case of Kartick Chandra Ghosh & ors, v. State of West Bengal & ors. reported in 1986 (II) CHN 378 the facts inter alia are that at the request of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta the office of the Regional Employment Exchange, Barrackpore forwarded the names of several persons whose names had been registered with the Exchange included those of the petitioners, for recruitment in the post of constables and sepoys. The petitioners were duly selected after interview, were declared medically fit and nothing was found against them in police verification. The petitioners were duly selected after interview, were declared medically fit and nothing was found against them in police verification. When the petitioners were awaiting for letters of appointment, they came to know that persons whose names were below them according to the list of selected candidates, were given appointments. The petitioners, five in number, moved the writ application for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters to them. On behalf of the respondents it was stated that it transpired from a letter from the office of the Employment Exchange, Barrackpore, that the list of candidates had been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police was entirely false and was not signed by the officer but that the signature appearing on the list was forged and that was the reason why the appointment, letters could not be issued to the petitioners. It was held that the police authorities could not involve the petitioners in the matter even assuming that there were gross irregularities and illegality in the matter of sending the list. It was also held that it was not mandatory on the part of the respondents to get the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange that it is not a condition precedent that before the case of any candidate is considered for appointment, such name must be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Inasmuch as the only thing in such public employment is that a candidate whose name shall be considered must be eligible for such consideration and if the recruiting authority is satisfied on examination or otherwise that a candidate is fit for such appointment, such candidate should be appointed by such authorities, whether the name of such candidate has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not. 7. The learned single Judge of this court while coming to the aforesaid conclusion also considered two Judgments of Mysore and Allahabad High Courts, viz., (1) Narashima Murthu (MC) & ors. v. Director of Collegiate Education reported in 1967 (2) LLJ 606 and (2) Sambhu Nath Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1975 (2) SLR 636, wherein both the aforesaid High Courts have considered and interpreted s. 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act. v. Director of Collegiate Education reported in 1967 (2) LLJ 606 and (2) Sambhu Nath Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1975 (2) SLR 636, wherein both the aforesaid High Courts have considered and interpreted s. 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act. While agreeing with the interpretation of the aforesaid section as made by both the Mysore and Allahabad High Courts the learned Judge observed as follows: "I respectfully agree with the views expressed in the above Mysore and Allahabad High Court cases and also hold that the provision, if any, in this behalf is merely directory and not mandatory and as such whether or not the names of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange is not at all relevant fact or for withholding such appointment after being selected by the Selection Board." 8. Section 4 of Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. v. N. Hargopal & ors. reported in 1987 (3) SCC 308 . In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court inter alia held that the said Act does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The object of the Act is not to restrict but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the best and the most efficient and provide an opportunity to the worker to have his claim for appointment considered without the worker having to knock at every door for employment. The Act only places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may occur in his establishment before filling those vacancies. There cannot be any doubt that in the instant case in terms of s. 4 of the Act notifications have been issued for filling up the vacancies through employment exchange and concerned employment exchange has also sent names on the basis of records and the authority concerned has completed the necessary test wherein the petitioners whose names have been sponsored by the said Employment Exchange became successful. It cannot be said at the subsequent stage that there was an error on the record relating to seniority and it would be improper to withhold such appointment to the petitioners' on the basis of allegations of fraud on the record of the Employment Exchange in which the petitioners could not be involved. 9. For the reasons aforesaid the petitioners should succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly there will be an order directing the respondents particularly respondents nos. 2 and 3 to give appointment to the petitioners to the post of 'D'-Group Staff (Peon) under unreserved and reserved quota in the office of Nadia District Collectorate if the petitioners are otherwise found to be fit for such posts in accordance with law. There will also be an order directing the respondents to extend the period of expiry of the said second panel if such appointments to the petitioners can not be effected in accordance with law within 31st March, 1990. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of the operative portion of the order countersigned by an Officer of this Court be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioners. Petition allowed; direction given.