Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the appointment of respondent Nos.5 to 14 on grade III and IV posts and also for issuance of a direction upon the University authorities to make appointment in accordance with the merit in the panel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the university authorities as also for the respondent Nos.5 to 14. No submission was made on behalf of the petitioner except a prayer for adjournment. 3. The facts of the case, briefly noted, are as follows : the petitioners pursuant to an advertisement dated 7-10-1991 applied for appointment on grade III and IV posts in the respondent University. Pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioners were called for interview on 8-8-1992 and 9-8-1992 by a Selection committee constituted by the University. According to the petitioners they had done well in the said interview and thereafter a panel was prepared and was approved in the month of January, 1993. In the meantime, an Ordinance being Bihar Ordinance No.33 of 1991 for the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes) Ordinance, 1991 came into force on 7-1- 1992. It is clear that before the panel could be prepared and approved in the month of January, 1993, the said Ordinance came into force. The said panel is to remain valid for a period of one year in terms of the concerned Statutes, namely, Clause 17 of the Rajendra agricultural University, Statutes 1976. Under Clause 17.2 of the said Statute it has been made very clear that the period of validity of any panel prepared by the Selection Committee shall be one year from the date of its recommendation. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after the expiry of the said panel in January, 1994, the appointments have been made from the said panel. Those appointees are respondent Nos.5 to 14. It is, therefore, contended that by giving such appointments, the authorities of the university have acted in breach and violation of the provisions contained in the relevant Act, namely, the Rajendra agricultural University Act, 1971 and also the said Statute of 1976. 5. Those appointees are respondent Nos.5 to 14. It is, therefore, contended that by giving such appointments, the authorities of the university have acted in breach and violation of the provisions contained in the relevant Act, namely, the Rajendra agricultural University Act, 1971 and also the said Statute of 1976. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the University authorites, it has been stated that in respect of the selection in question, the Selection Committee submitted its report to the Vice Chancellor in January, 1993 and it has been admitted in paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit that the terms of the panel was valid until January, 1994. It is alleged that the said panel was re-validated by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his power under Sec.22 (6)and 22 (4) of the Rajendra Agricultural university Act, 1987. It is not in dispute that there is no provision under the Act directly empowering the vice chancellor to revalidate the life of the panel beyond the period of its duration. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the respondent University has submitted that the Vice Chancellor has exercised his power under Sec.22 (6)and 22 (4) of the said Act. The said provisions, namely, Sec.22 (6) and 22 (4) of the Rajendra Agricultural university Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) are set out below : "22 (6) The Vice-Chancellor may take any action in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action, and he shall in such case and as soon as may be thereafter, inform the authority which will ordinarily have dealt with the matter. If the authority disagrees with the Vice-Chancellor, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final.22 (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and the Regulations and he shall exercise such powers as may be necessary in this behalf. " 6. Section 22 (4) of the said Act is merely a provision by which the Vice chancellor is to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act and the Statutes and the Regulations and the Vice Chancellor shall exercise such powers as may be necessary in this behalf. Here one of the provisions of the Statutes is that the panel prepared by the Selection Committee shall remain valid only for a period of one year. Here one of the provisions of the Statutes is that the panel prepared by the Selection Committee shall remain valid only for a period of one year. Therefore, while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the said act, the Vice Chancellor cannot extend the validity period of the panel by extending it in absence of any clear statutory provision. However, reliance has been strongly placed by the learned counsel on the provisions of Sec.22 (6)of the said Act which has been set out above. It is obvious from a reading of said Sec.22 (6) of the said Act that the said power of the Vice Chancellor is an emergency power. 7. Emergency power can be exercised only when an emergency exists. It is well settled that the emergency power cannot be exercised as a substitute for the regular exercise of power nor can the exercise of such emergency power be justified when the matter is pending consideration of the authorities concerned for a long time. Here no justification has been given for the exercise of such emergency power. In the counter-affidavit, save and except some averments in paragraph 5, it has been said by way of justification that it became necessary to exercise emergency power in view of the said Ordinance, namely, Bihar Ordinance No.33 of 1991. but the admitted factual position of the case demolished the justification of the said plea. In the instant case the said Ordinance has come into effect on 7th january, 1992 and the panel has been finalised in 1993 and has been kept pending for more than a year. Therefore, no emergency can be said to have arisen as a result of the passing of the said Ordinance about two years before the exercise of such alleged emergency power. The provisions of sub-section (6) of Sec.22 of the said Act have not been engrafted to cater to such a situation, where a state of affairs is allowed to continue for two years and thereafter suddenly on the strength of the alleged exercise of such emergency power, a new situation is sought to be created. 8. It is well known that judicial scrutiny in the matter of exercise emergency power may be limited but no body exercising such emergency power enjoys an absolute freedom from judicial scrutiny. 8. It is well known that judicial scrutiny in the matter of exercise emergency power may be limited but no body exercising such emergency power enjoys an absolute freedom from judicial scrutiny. Similar question came up for consideration before the Hon ble supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi cotton Mills V/s. Union of India reported in A. I. R.1981 S. C. page 818. In that case, the learned three Judges Bench of the Honble Supreme Court was considering the implication of exercise of emergency power under Sec.18-AA of the Industries (Development and regulation) Act, 1951. It has been contended before the Supreme Court that the very purpose of exercise of power under Sec.18-AA of the said act is to take immediate action and it was virtually argued before the supreme Court that immediacy of such an executive action is beyond the scrutiny of the Court since such action has been taken in the public interest. Learned counsel, who has challenged the said action, however, opposed the said contention and argued that such immediate action is also open to the judicial scrutiny. Considering the rival contentions, the Supreme Court found merit in the submission of the learned counsel and held that the Courts have the power of judicial scrutiny to look into the factual basis for such an action. The relevant observation on this aspect is quoted from paragraphs 56 and 57 at page 836 of the said judgment. 9. This Court also holds that in the admitted factual background of this case, the exercise of emergency power by the Vice Chancellor in re-validating the life of the panel is neither justified nor it is tenable in law. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that extending the life of panel by the Vice Chancellor is wholly illegal and cannot be supported in law and as such all appointments made in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14 in this case after extending the life of the panel also cannot be maintained. 10. This writ-petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. The appointments made in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14 after extending the life of the panel are all set aside and quashed. Learned counsel for the University authorities has, however, submitted that if the appointments are quashed, it will be difficult for the University authorities to carry on its day-to-day administration. The appointments made in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 14 after extending the life of the panel are all set aside and quashed. Learned counsel for the University authorities has, however, submitted that if the appointments are quashed, it will be difficult for the University authorities to carry on its day-to-day administration. This court, therefore, directs that even though the appointments of respondent Nos.5 to 14 are set aside, they are entitled to continue on casual basis on the same post in the same manner as the petitioners are continuing. 11. The respondents authorities are, however, directed to immediately take steps for preparation of a panel in accordance with law and to take all steps for the advertisement of the post and hold tests, if any and hold interview and to complete such exercise within 28-2-1997. The new panel must be prepared and approved by 1-3-1997. Both the petitioners and the private respondents, namely, respondent Nos.5 to 14 are allowed to participate in the said selection process and their candidatures will be considered and if necessary, the bar of their age limit will be suitably condoned. It is expected that on the basis of the said panel which is to be prepared within the aforesaid date, the University authorities will take immediate steps for their appointments in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to cost. Petition Allowed.