JUDGMENT It is the case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners are trained candidates having requisite qualifications for the posts of Primary School Teachers under the Burdwan District School Board and were interviewed by the selection committee on different dates at various places in Burdwan in the year 1975-1983. 2. It has been alleged in the petition that a panel dated December 8, 1983 bas been prepared by the District School Board, Burdwan, without following the Law and Rules and/or without following the Govt. Order No. 573-Edn (P) / 3-P32/81 dated 5th August, 1983 and also Government Order No. 1176 Edn (P) / 10 R-1/71 Part I dated 1.12.71. 3. It has further been alleged in the mentions that most of the petitioners were also included in panel before this panel i.e. in the year 1975, in accordance with law and rules, but the said panel had not been acted upon and in the meanwhile the aforesaid fresh panel has been prepared. 4. It is also of the petitioners that the said panel dated 8.12.83 was not adhered to by the President, District School Beard, Burdwan. The ratio of 60 : 40 basis in respect of recruitment of the posts of Primary Teachers as per said Government Order dated 1st December, 1971 and also said order dated 5.8.83 was not followed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 while framing up the panel. As a result the petitioners have been deprived of their legitimate claim while a good number of untrained candidates and B.A.B., Ed., B.Sc. and M.A., B. Ed. candidates, to the liking of the respondents concerned have been appointed in illegal manner in contravention of the said Government orders here adequate number of trained candidates were/are available. 5. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the time of training period there was an agreement between the petitioners and Government that upon successful completion of training they shall be called upon by Government to serve as teachers in such Junior Basic School as may be desired by the Government on such remuneration as may from time to time be fixed by the Government. 6. It has also been submitted that the petitioners' name were included in the Employment Exchange being Code Nos. 6. It has also been submitted that the petitioners' name were included in the Employment Exchange being Code Nos. 152.10 and 153.10 i. e. they are only entitled to get service in Primary Schools according to the Government Order dated 5th August, 1983. 7. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are competent persons to be appointed as teachers and as such are entitled to get the appointment letter in view of the statutory Rules. 8. It is further case of the petitioners that the petitioners moved a writ application before this Court which was disposed of on 8th April, 1986 by Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. as he then was. The learned Advocate for the Board has submitted that a new pane] is going to be prepared and when such panel would be prepared, the petitioners in this writ petition will be given interview letters and their cases would be considered along with other candidates for being included in the panel. 9. The said order in the writ petition recording the submission of the learned Advocate for the Board was communicated to all the respondents by registered post and the petitioners were informed that this panel will be prepared as recorded in the said order. Both the said order dated 8.4.86 and letter of the Board dated 26.8.86 have been annexed in the writ petition. 10. The authority concerned however did not take any action in the matter and the petitioners had to made representation before the concerned authority through their learned Advocates dated 23rd September, 1986. 11. It has been submitted by the petitioners further that all on a sudden the petitioners found in a local newspaper called 'Natun Gati' dated 16.10.86 that an order was passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. as he then was directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners in Civil Rule No. 195(W)/84 and Civil Rule No. 2134(W)/84 and also to another petitioner viz. Ardhendu Sekhar Panja within a stipulated time. It has been submitted further that the non-compliance of the said order the writ petitioner filed contempt application when an order was passed on 24th September, 1986 directing the respondents to give appointment within four weeks from 24th September, 1986 and also passed an injunction restraining the respondents from making any panel till such appointment. 12. It has been submitted further that the non-compliance of the said order the writ petitioner filed contempt application when an order was passed on 24th September, 1986 directing the respondents to give appointment within four weeks from 24th September, 1986 and also passed an injunction restraining the respondents from making any panel till such appointment. 12. The petitioners however were not appointed although many others have been appointed and as such objections were raised. The contention of the petitioner is that they are also holding the same qualification including training and they a so appeared before the Selection Committee for interview but for unknown reason the petitioners were not included in the said fresh panel and as such they moved the said writ application. 13. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that al though many posts of Primary Teachers were lying vacant the said posts were not filled up from the panel, and only some of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were given appointment. Since the petitioners in the instant writ petition were not given appointment although they were enquiry placed the petitioners moved a writ petition before N. K. Mitra, J. on 28th October, 1986 being C. O. No.12745(W)/86. In the said writ petition, an order was passed inter alia directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Primary Teachers in accordance with law, along with the candidates who were the petitioners in C. R. No. 195(W) of 1984 and C. R. No. 2134(W) of 1984. The said order dated 28.10.86 who duly communicated to the respondents but he did not carry out the said order and as such the petitioners moved contempt petition before N. K. Mitra, J. on 14tb January, 1987. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the contemner/respondent No. 4 Basanta Mohan Chatterjee, District Inspector of School (Primary), Burdwan. In both the said affidavits it was alleged that in obedience of the order they considered the case of the petitioners and found that there were several candidates whose position in the merit list was higher up but could not be given appointment due to nonexistence of vacancies. The petitioners, however, in their affidavits in the contempt proceeding pointed out that there are several hundred of vacancies which were not filled up. The petitioners, however, in their affidavits in the contempt proceeding pointed out that there are several hundred of vacancies which were not filled up. An appeal was preferred against the said judgment of N. K. Mitra, J. and the Division Bench disposed of the appeal and passed certain directions which is inter alia as follows :- "The appropriate authorities can certainly draw up a panel according to the Rules and make appointments from it also according to the Rules as and when necessary and the exercise of authority in these regards will not be subject to the exhaustion of the 'existing panel' or the making an exhaust on of the 'Supplementary panel'." 14. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, appointment have been given to many of the writ petitioners. The prayer was also made on behalf of the petitioners to file Supplementary Affidavit stating the said fact. Such prayer was allowed. Learned Advocate for the respondent, Burdwan District Primary Council also prayed for leave to file reply to the same on 25.5.96 which was also allowed. 15. Pursuant to the said leave granted, a Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the petitioners affirmed by one Abdurrab Mondal being petitioner No. 37 on 4.4.96, was filed in Court on 30.4.96. It has been stated in the said Supplementary Affidavit that during the pendency of the writ application, District Council, Burdwan issued 20 appointment letters from amongst writ petitioners in different schools in the District of Burdwan. Detail list showing the names of writ petitioners who have been appointed as Primary Teachers in 1993 in Burdwan Primary Council has been annexed to the said supplementary Affidavit marked as Annexure 'A'. 16. Names of respective writ petitioners and the names of the school where they have been appointed have also been mentioned in the said annexure. It appears that prior to the said Supplementary Affidavit another Supplementary Affidavit was filed by one Dharmodas Das on 18.7.94. Pursuant to the direction filed on 12.7.94, a list of names of 16 writ petitioners who have been appointed as Primary Teachers since 1993 under the Burdwan Primary School Council with the names of the respective schools where they have been appointed bas also been annexed. No reply to any such Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. Pursuant to the direction filed on 12.7.94, a list of names of 16 writ petitioners who have been appointed as Primary Teachers since 1993 under the Burdwan Primary School Council with the names of the respective schools where they have been appointed bas also been annexed. No reply to any such Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. The fact that there were vacancies at the relevant time could not be disputed. It appears, therefore that the respondents did not fill up the said vacancies and appoint the petitioners who were selected interview and who are empanelled for appointment but allowed the panel to lapse. The appointments were not made and the panel was not filled up without any valid reason. The petitioners at the material time had the right to be appointed since the vacancies were existing. Subsequently, however, many of the writ petitioners were appointed who are given appointment. Right to equal treatment in the matter of employment has been guaranteed under our Constitution. 17. Mr. Ashok Maity, learned Advocate who appears in many matters for Primary School Council was present in Court and was appointed Amicus Curiae. Mr. Maity bas referred to Rule 3 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 and has submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to exhaust the panel if the vacancies existed. Since the vacancies were existing at the material time, the concerned authorities acted with material irregularity by not exhausting the panel and by not appointing the petitioners in the vacancies which were admittedly existing. According to him, the Board acted illegally by not absorbing them and by absorbing only some of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition which amounts to gross discrimination. He has further submitted that the Board acted illegally by not acting in terms of Rule 3E of the said Act and the attempt to make fresh panel without exhausting the panel is an irregularity. He has further submitted that in the instant case the petitioner should succeed. 18. I have considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the learned Advocates. In my view, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to exhaust the panel if the vacancies existed. Since the vacancies were existing at the material time, the authorities acted illegally by not absorbing the petitioner in the vacancies. 18. I have considered the facts on record and the submissions made by the learned Advocates. In my view, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to exhaust the panel if the vacancies existed. Since the vacancies were existing at the material time, the authorities acted illegally by not absorbing the petitioner in the vacancies. Moreover, after the writ petition was filed the authorities gave appointment to many of the writ petitioners as Primary Teachers under Burdwan District School Board. The list showing the names of the writ petitioners who were given appointment in the respective schools has been annexed with the Supplementary Affidavit filed by Abdurrab Mondal affirmed on 4.4.96 on behalf of the petitioners. 19. It may be noted that the appointments were also directed to be made by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. in aforesaid Civil Rule No. 195(W)/84 and Civil Rule No. 2134(W)/84 although pursuant to the same, appointments were not given. The writ petitioners in Civil Rule initiated contempt proceedings. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners are properly qualified to get appointment. There is no reason, therefore, to pick and choose and give appointment to some and not to others. Moreover, it appears that the right accrued in favour of the petitioners when the panel was prepared since they were all found suitable. There was no reason not to absorb them against the vacancies which were all along existing. The petitioners who have Dot as yet been given the job should be provided with appointment by the concerned authorities. 20. It appears from the facts on record that the respondent authorities made hostile discrimination and acted arbitrarily in the matter of employment and the action of the said respondent clearly violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent authorities should give appointment to the petitioners who have not been absorbed as yet, and absorb them against the existing vacancies. In the event the vacancies are not exiting at the moment, the said writ petitioners who have not as yet got appointment, will be given appointment as and when the vacancies will arise and not outsiders will be appointed until all of them are given such appointment. In the event the vacancies are not exiting at the moment, the said writ petitioners who have not as yet got appointment, will be given appointment as and when the vacancies will arise and not outsiders will be appointed until all of them are given such appointment. It is made clear that the age of the petitioners will not stand in the way of giving appointment and accordingly excess are of the petitioners, if any, will be condoned since the matter is pending in Court for long years. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the directions as above. There will be no order as to costs.