JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– We are satisfied with the reasons given in the above application for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 83 days in preferring the above appeal is condoned. Let the appeal be registered if it is otherwise in form. The application is allowed. Re: Application for stay dated 14.7.95. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Judge even during the pendency of the appeal and application for condonation of delay as also stay application the writ petitioners/opposite party has already been appointed in the post in question. 2. Dr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for State of West Bengal and Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the Managing Director, West Bengal State Minor Irrigation Corporation Limited State that appointment which has been given effect to by the State was given pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Judge. Dr. Banerjee submits that as the appointment has already been given, the appellant does not want to take away the said appointment irrespective of the merits of the appeal. 3. In that view of the matter we have decided to bear out the matter on its merits as to whether the State was decided the matters on the decision of the learned Trial Judge was based on correct principle or not. 4. Dr. Banerjee submits that if the principle laid down by the learned Trial Judge is allowed to continue, it will create a precedent and whenever a person would be selected and empanelled, he has to be appointed as a matter of course. 5. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment, dated April 1995 was pleased to hold that as the petitioner has been empanelled, he cannot be asked to wait for an indefinite period for securing a job whether he was duly qualified and particularly when he has been figured as No.1 in the panel and, as such, the learned Trial Judge directed the State to accord approval in the post of Assistant Operator in the Minor Irrigation Directorate in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing the said order. Pursuant to such direction appointment was given to the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Pursuant to such direction appointment was given to the writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Banerjee in support of his case drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) State of Bihar v. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 737 wherein the Supreme Court has held that a person who is selected does not on account of being empanelled alone acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. An employment is at the best a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to contrary. 7. In another judgment the Supreme Court consisting of five learned Judges in the case of (2) Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 had observed that it cannot be said that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. 8. Further the question of appointment is within the domain of the employment. The Court may direct the authority concerned to consider the same in accordance with the recruitment rules or relevant law, but Court cannot direct the authority concerned to give appointment in favour of any person unless a case has been made out that under the rules such appointment can be given in an automatic process or appointment in such a case is ministerial. 9. Further life of a panel is also for one year and in the instant case the panel was prepared in 1990. It is well settled principle that when validity period of a panel is fixed after the expiry of that period the said panel lapses and on the basis of that panel no appointment can be given. 10. In view of such settled law we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in issuing a direction that one person should be given appointment straightway and the State Government should give approval in favour of a person who was occupying No. 1 in the panel. We are of the view that this is beyond the power of the writ Court to issue such direction. 11. We are of the view that this is beyond the power of the writ Court to issue such direction. 11. Accordingly, the order of the learned Trial Judge, dated April 13, 1995 is set aside. The appeal is allowed along with the application. But this order shall not affect the appointment already given to the writ petitioner as that would create a tremendous hardship and the said appointment is sustained purely on humanitarian ground as also on the basis of concession given by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/State. 12. There will he no order as to costs. 13. The Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondents State that his client shall not proceed with the contempt application which is pending before the learned Trial Judge. Re: F.M.A.T No. 1707 of 1995 (Managing Director, W. B. State Minor Irrigation Corporation v. Manoranjan Mondal and Others). This appeal and all applications pending are disposed of in terms of the order passed in F.M.A.T. No. 1873 of 1995.