Judgment S. B. Slnba, J. 1. -in this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ on direction directing the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the elementary School of Godda district. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is holder of a certificate of Upadhyaya granted by mandar Vidyapith, Bhagalpur, which is said to be equivalent to Matriculation examination A vacancy was advertised on 12-1 -1986 in newspaper aaj inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools in Godda district. In the said advertisement, it has been stipulated that a panel for appointment was to be prepared from amongst the trained teachers According to the petitioner, he passed that training examination in 1980 He also applied for the said post, and his certificates, etc. were examined by a Committee. According to the petitioner in terms of item No.2 of the Government order dated 11th May, 1974 a panel of the trained teachers was to be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the academic and training examination in preferential order. Admittedly, a panel was prepared on 26-9-1987 which contained 527 names. The petitioner has contended that the said panel has not been prepared in terms of the Government order dated 11th May, 1974. The petitioner and others allegedly filed a protest in relation to that panel on 23-10-1987 whereafter a supplementary panel consisting of 70 persons including the names of those who have completed training after the petitioner had been included. The petitioner was admittedly informed that bis name was not included in the panel as the certificate granted to him by Mandar Vidyapith, Bhagalpur, has been declared invalid. The petitioner has contended that the said order is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has contended that a writ petition was filed in this Court by Ram Kumar Purevey and others being CWJC No.1358 of 1988, In our opinion, the said decision has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. The petitioners name was not included ia the panel which was prepared in 1987. Evidently, at that point of time, he was aware of the said fact. He did not question the said panel at that time. 5. 4. The petitioners name was not included ia the panel which was prepared in 1987. Evidently, at that point of time, he was aware of the said fact. He did not question the said panel at that time. 5. The petitioner has himself annexed a copy of the Circular letter dated 25th June, 1973. The said Circular letter refers to an earlier of the appointment department bearing No.10275 dated 16th August, 1965. The said letter dated 16th August, 1965 has not been produced before us and thus we are not aware as to in what circumstances, if any, the certificate granted by Mandar Vidyapith was recognised. It is now well settled that when a panel of a large number of persons is prepared which is to remain alive for a long time the same cannot be termed as a select list and the persons whose names appear therein cannot have a legal right for appointment in terms of the said purported panel. Evidently, the said panel was prepaied only on the basis of the passing of the year of the training examination. Thus; the said panel being not select list, the same cannot be enforced in a court of law Tn any event, in this case, as the petitioner was not included in the said panel, the petitioner should have questioned the same within a reasonable time after the publication thereof He has not done so. We do not thus think it a fit case where we should exercise our jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner This observation is also being made in view of the fact that the State Government has since framed rules for appointment of teachers in Elementary Schools The said rules have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the appointments which may be made now must conform to the provisions of the said rules Any circular letter or a panel which was prepared prior thereto cannot have any relevancy in the matter of any appointment to be made after the rules have come into force.5. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.