JUDGMENT Altamas Kabir, J. : In this writ petition, the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondents to give them appointments to the post of Lower Division Assistant in the existing and future vacancies, both on the Original as well as Appellate Side, from the panel said to be existing and to extend the validity of the panel till the same was exhausted. The writ petitioners have also prayed that no steps should be taken by the respondents to act on the basis of any fresh notice or advertisement in the above regard until the existing panel was exhausted. 2. Appearing in support of the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for therein, Mr. Samaraditya Pal submitted that pursuant to a notice, the writ petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant in this Court and were asked to appear at a written test held on 2nd and 3rd November, 1990, followed by a viva voce test conducted on 20th and 27th April, 1991. Subsequent thereto, a panel of 62 candidates was prepared and approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 5th May, 1991, with effect from 2nd May, 1991, with the stipulation that the same would be valid for three years. 3. Mr. pal submitted that thereafter a decision was taken to give another chance to those candidates, who had failed to secure qualifying marks in one subject but had secured satisfactory marks in aggregate, to appear at a supplementary written test in the subject in which they had failed. Such test was held on 27th January, 1991, followed by a viva voce test conducted on 8th June, 1991, 13th July, 1991, and 10th August, 1991, and a second panel was prepared and placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his approval on 18th December, 1991, On 19th February 1992, the then Chief Justice passed an order to the effect that both the panels should be kept separately and appointments should first be made in order to merit from the first panel which was approved on 5th May, 1991. 4. Mr. Pal urged that from the tenor of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 19th February, 1992, the obvious implication is that the second panel stood approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, which would be substantiated by subsequent developments. 5. Mr. 4. Mr. Pal urged that from the tenor of the order passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 19th February, 1992, the obvious implication is that the second panel stood approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, which would be substantiated by subsequent developments. 5. Mr. Pal then submitted that since the life of both the panels were to expire on 1st may, 1994, a proposal was put up by the Registrar, Original Side, to (he Hon'ble Chief Justice to extend the life of the panel and on the basis thereof, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by his order of 13th December, 1994, extended the life of the panels till 31st December, 1994. 6. Mr.Pal urged that the second panel was really meant to be a continuation of or extension of the first panel, as would be evident from the fact that, after the first panel had been exhausted, four appointments were made from the second or supplementary panel on the Original Side. However, as no further appointments were, thereafter, made from the said panel, the writ petitioners were prompted to move the instant writ petition of the reliefs as indicated hereinbefore. 7. Referring to the records of the case produced by Mr. Dipayan Chowdhury, Mr. Pal submitted that from the said records it would be evident that the first panel was being prepared to fill up vacancies in the Original Side of this Court. However, on 27th December, 1990, the Registrar, Appellate Side put up a proposal for filling up 37 vacancies of Lower Division Assistants in the Appellate Side from the panel under preparation. Ultimately, subject to 20 candidates being kept apart for filling up immediate and future vacancies in the Original Side, approval was given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for filling up the vacancies in the Appellate Side from the panel of 62 candidates approved on 5th may, 1991. 8. However, while the first panel was till under preparation, on the proposal of the Registrar, Original Side, the Hon'ble Chief justice by his order of 24th December, 1990, gave his approval to the preparation of a second panel, as mentioned hereinbefore, culminating in the order of 19th February, 1992, and on subsequent extension of the life of both the panels on 13th December, 1994, till 31st December, 1994. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Pal urged that apart from the four appointments made from the second or supplementary panel, several other vacancies had arisen prior to 31st December, 1994, which should have been filled up from the said panel. Mr. Pal also urged that since such vacancies had arisen when the said panel was admittedly valid, and the petitioners had chosen to vindicate their claim by filing the instant writ petition, appropriate directions should issue to the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies which had not been filled up till date, both in the Original and Appellate Sides. 10. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Pal firstly referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India, reported in JT 1995 (3) SC at page 417, wherein, while considering the method for selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court observed that while a person selected may not have a vested right to be appointed, he does have a right to be considered for appointment and the Government was unjustified in remaining inactive in not making the appointment in the vacancy which could have been offered to him. 11. Mr. Pal then referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. vs. Rafiquddin & Ors. and several connected cases, reported in 1987 (Suppl.) SCC at page 401, in support of the proposition that till another selection test was held and the results thereof were declared, the existing panels continued to be valid. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court after noting that the Rules did not expressly provide as to for what period the list prepared in terms of the said Rules could be utilised for making appointments, went on to observe that in the absence of any provision in the Rules a reasonable period must be followed during which the appointments on the basis of the result of a particular examination should be made. 12. The Supreme Court further observed that the list prepared by the Public Service Commission on the basis of the competitive examination of a particular year could be utilised by the Government for making appointment to the service before the declaration of the result of the subsequent examination. 13. Mr. 12. The Supreme Court further observed that the list prepared by the Public Service Commission on the basis of the competitive examination of a particular year could be utilised by the Government for making appointment to the service before the declaration of the result of the subsequent examination. 13. Mr. Pal also referred to a Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Prasanna Kumar Nayak & Ors. vs. National Insurance Co. & Ors., reported in 1993 (1) LLJ at page 611, wherein it was held that since the respondents had continued to give appointments from the panel after its validity had lapsed, they were estopped by their conduct from denying employment to the petitioners, whose names were also empanelled. 14. Mr. Pal lastly referred to an unreported judgment delivered by Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. in Sri Parimal Chandra Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., on 10th June, 1994, wherein the respondents were restrained from cancelling the select list till the same was exhausted and no appointment was to be given to the post in question except from the said list till it was exhausted. 15. Mr. Pal urged that in the light of the aforesaid decisions, at least the petitioners, who had approached this Court during the period of validity of the panel should' be accommodated against the vacancies which had arisen prior to 31st December, 1994. 16. Opposing the writ application on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Registrar, Appellate Side, Mr. Arun Prokash Sircar firstly submitted that the second or supplementary panel had never been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The order passed by the Chief Justice on 19th February, 1992, merely directed the two panels to be kept separate. No formal approval was given to the second panel. However, even if it be• assumed that such approval was given, Mr. Sircar urged that having their names empanelled only gave the writ petitioners a right to be considered for appointment and nothing more. Mr. Sircar contended that, in any event, the entire question had been rendered academic after the expiry of the validity of the panel, even if the date of expiry is taken to be 31st December, 1994. 17. Mr. Sircar urged that having their names empanelled only gave the writ petitioners a right to be considered for appointment and nothing more. Mr. Sircar contended that, in any event, the entire question had been rendered academic after the expiry of the validity of the panel, even if the date of expiry is taken to be 31st December, 1994. 17. Mr. Sircar then submitted that the Original and the Appellate Sides of this Court were two different and distinct entities, having their own infrustructures and machinery for selection and appointment to different posts under their respective jurisdictions. Mr. Sircar added that perhaps this was the first time that a common panel had been prepared for giving appointments both on the Original and Appellate Sides, and, that too, for the purpose of filling up a total number of 37 vacancies in the Appellate Side and was not intended for filling up future vacancies in the Appellate Side. 18. Mr. Sircar urged that the decision to create a second or supplementary panel was taken on the unilateral proposal made by the Registrar, Original Side, without prior discu5sion with the Registrar, Appellate Side. According to Mr. Sircar, the Registrar Appellate Side, had no occasion to consider the need for preparation of a Supplementary panel, since the requirement of 37 vacancies on the Appellate Side had been fully met from the first panel of 62 candidates and, in fact, even the requirement on the Original Side was confined to 8 immediate and 12 future vacancies. 19. Mr. Sircar urged that it is this state of affairs which prompted the Registrar, Appellate Side, to put up his note of 17th January, 1994, proposing that steps be taken for preparation of a panel for appointment of Lower Division Assistants on the Appellate Side, in the year 1994, find to inform the Registrar, Original Side, to prepare a panel for vacancies in a particular year only and to discontinue the practice of preparation of large panels for recruitment of Lower Division Assistants, both in the Original as well as Appellate Side. 20. Mr. 20. Mr. Sircar submitted that as far as the Appellate Side of the High Court was concerned, the common panel for appointment of Lower Division Assistants, both in the Original and Appellate Sides, ended with the exhaustion of the first panel approved on 5th May, 1991, and the question of giving appointments on the Appellate Side from the second or supplementary panel, did not, therefore, arise. 21. In support of his various submissions, Mr. Sircar firstly referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC at page 736, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless any relevant service rule says to the contrary. The Supreme Court observed further that delay in holding examinations or publishing the results in respect thereof does not give a right to all the empanelled candidates in the select list to be appointed against vacancies available on the date of publication of the results, but the State should not also act in a leisurely and casual manner in the matter of selection for appointment. 22. Mr. Sircar also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC at page 1612, where the same principles were considered and explained. 23. Mr. Sircar then referred to a Bench decision of this Court in State of West Bengal vs. Monoranjan Mandal & Ors., reported in 1996 (1) CLJ at page 425, where it was reiterated that when a panel was for a fixed period, no appointment could be made therefrom after the expiry of such period. It was also held that appointment of an empanelled candidate was in the domain of the employer and the Court could at best direct the employer to consider the case of the candidate but not to direct the employer to give such employment. 24. Mr. Sircar referred to certain other decisions in the same line, which reference will be made if required. 25. 24. Mr. Sircar referred to certain other decisions in the same line, which reference will be made if required. 25. Referring to R. S. Mittal's case, cited by Mr. Pal, Mr Sircar urged that the observations made therein were in tune with the observations made by the Supreme Court in the various cases cited by him, and, in fact, supported his contentions. 26. Mr. Sircar urged that the writ petition was without merit and was liable to be dismissed. 27. Appearing for the Registrar, Original Side, Mr. Dipayan Chowdhury submitted that the decision to prepare a Supplementary panel having been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice by his order of 24th December, 1990, the validity thereof was beyond question. Whether it would form part of the first panel or would be treated as a separate panel, would have to be decided on the available records. Furthermore, the formation of a second or supplementary panel was proposed in order to supplement the first panel of 62 candidates in case all the said candidates did not appear for the viva voce test or were unsuccessful at such test. 28. Mr. Chowdhury submitted that the note of the Registrar, Original Side, dated 24th December, 1990, made it quite clear that such supplementary panel was being prepared keeping in mind present and future requirements both of the Original and Appellate Sides, and the side proposal was duly approved by the Chief Justice. 29. Mr. Chowdhury urged that it would now have to be considered whether any appointments, either on the Original or Appellate Sides. could at all be made from the supplementary panel, since its validity had expired on 31st December, 1994. 30. From the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record, the only point which emerges for consideration is whether the second or supplementary panel was validly prepared and approved and whether any appointments can be made therefrom since, even if it be accepted that the panel had been validly prepared, its life had ended on 31st December, 1994. 31. That the supplementary or second panel, whatever name we call it by, was prepared with the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is quite evident from the note of the Registrar, Original Side, and the order passed thereon by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 24th December, 1990. 31. That the supplementary or second panel, whatever name we call it by, was prepared with the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, is quite evident from the note of the Registrar, Original Side, and the order passed thereon by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 24th December, 1990. That the preparation of the same was with a view to filling up immediate and future vacancies, both on the Original and Appellate Sides, is also clear and unambiguous, notwithstanding Mr. Sircar's submissions to the contrary. In fact, it appeals that subsequent appointments were made in the Original Side from/the supplementary panel. 32. In this context, the note put up by the Registrar, Appellate Side, on 17th January, 1994, must be presumed to be for future reference. The same is also supported by the fact that the life of the supplementary panel was extended long thereafter on 13th December, 1994 till 31st December, 1994. If we are to accept Mr. Sircar's submissions that the supplementary or second panel had not been approved then, in such event, the life of the panel could not have beer. extended till 31st December, 1994, and subsequent appointments could not rave been made therefrom even on the Original Side. 33. This brings us to the all important question as to whether the writ petitioners can be appointed from the supplementary panel, which admittedly lost its validity on 31st December, 1994. 34. At first glance it would appear that the writ petitioners have no claim since the life of the panel has expired, but then it is not disputed that several vacancies occurred before the panel lost its validity and the writ petitioners came forward to press their claim prior to such eventuality. In other words the panel lost its validity during the pendency of the writ petition which gives an altogether different complexion to the matter and, in my view, the petitioners' claim cannot be defeated on the ground that the panel has lost is validity. 35. As indicated hereinbefore, the writ petition was filed on 21st November, 1994, more than one month before the panel lost .its validity. Had the writ petition been disposed of prior to 1st December, 1994, no question could possibly have arisen if directions had been given to consider the petitioner's case for appointment. 35. As indicated hereinbefore, the writ petition was filed on 21st November, 1994, more than one month before the panel lost .its validity. Had the writ petition been disposed of prior to 1st December, 1994, no question could possibly have arisen if directions had been given to consider the petitioner's case for appointment. In my view, the position remains unaltered because of the pendency of the matter in this Court, since the petitioners' claim, if any, to be considered for appointment, accrued prior to the expiry of the life of the panel, depending on the number of vacancies available as on 31st December, 1994. 36. There is no room for argument that ordinarily no appointment can be made from a panel whose life had expired. But, since in my view, the supplementary panel was prepared in terms of the order of 24th December, 1990, keeping in mind the filling up on vacancies, both on the Original and Appellate Sides, the petitioners had acquired a right to be considered for appointment in respect of the vacancies which had occurred prior to 31st December 1994, in order of merit. 37. This fact brings the facts of this case in pari materia with the facts of the different cases cited both on behalf of the writ petitioners, as also the respondents. 38. In R. S. Mittal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while recognising the fact that a person on a select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected, was of the view that he does have• a right to be considered for appointment and the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. The Supreme Court went on to observe that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. 39. The same principle has been reiterated in the case of The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 (supra), cited by Mr. Sircar. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. 39. The same principle has been reiterated in the case of The Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 (supra), cited by Mr. Sircar. In the said case it was observed that the State is not expected to act in a leisurely manner and treat the matter of selection for appointment to services casually. 40. In the present case, no justifiable reason is forthcoming as to way appointments were not made from the supplementary panel in respect of vacancies which occurred before the panel lost its validity on 31st December, 1994. The reasons sought to be put forward on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hardly tenable. As indicated hereinbefore, the supplementary panel was prepared keeping in mind vacancies in the present and in. the future, both in the Original and Appellate Sides, and there could be no justification on the part of the authorities, both on the Original and Appellate Sides, not to give appointments therefrom in vacancies which occurred prior to 31st December, 1994. 41. Accordingly, since in my view the petitioners had acquired a right to be considered for appointment, I dispose of this application with a direction on the respondents to consider the writ petitioners' claim for appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant in the vacancies which may have occurred, both in the Original and Appellate Sides, prior to 31st December, 1994, strictly in order of merit in the supplementary list. This benefit will be confined to the writ petitioners alone, inasmuch as, only they have come forward to press their claims. Such consideration is to be made within two months from the date of communication of this order. 42. There will be no order as to costs. 43. Before parting with the case, I would like to mention that the High Court administration should not indulge in plurality of views, and difference of opinion and views between the two wings of the High Court administration should, as far as' possible, be avoided in future. 44. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of the judgement on the usual undertaking. Application allowed.