JUDGMENT Mookberjee, A.C.J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15th October, 1996, passed in Civil Order No.11337 (W) of 1991, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions :– “I am of the view that because the respondents have given appointment to persons whose names were not in the panel without considering the petitioner's case and without offering any appointment to the petitioner and that too after the validity period of the panel lapsed. In all rareness, the petitioner should be offered appointment in respect of the vacant post, in a post which has been directed to be kept vacant. When the appointments have already been made in an illegal and irregular manner the Court should not ordinarily interfere and accordingly I do not intend to interfere with this appointment even though the same has been appointed illegality in the manner indicated above. But, in order to restore the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the vacant post, the petitioner's case for appointment should be considered as the mere selection does not confer any vested right for appointment but certainly it gives a right to be considered for appointment and the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel and nor to decline to make appointment from the panel, but from outside, and by not following the position in the panel. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to act accordingly. “2. The private respondent before us, Shri Dipak Acharyya, approached this Court by filing the writ petition, on which the order under appeal was passed, seeking a mandate upon the appellants before us to appoint him in the post of Junior Office Assistant of the National Airport Authority, Calcutta region. 3. It appears that on the request of the National Airport Authority Calcutta region the local Employment Exchange. Dum Dum, sponsored the name of the writ petitioner for appointment in the post of Junior Office Assistant. The appellant thereafter, invited the writ petitioner for an interview, which took place on 15th January, 1988 and immediately thereafter a panel was prepared. The name of the writ petitioner featured in position No.9 on that panel the appellants gave appointments to the candidates from Serial Nos. The appellant thereafter, invited the writ petitioner for an interview, which took place on 15th January, 1988 and immediately thereafter a panel was prepared. The name of the writ petitioner featured in position No.9 on that panel the appellants gave appointments to the candidates from Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and also one candidate whose position was 18th in the panel. They, however, did not appoint the writ petitioner whose position was 9th in the panel. 4. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner challenged this discrimination. In addition to that, the writ petitioner contended that two persons, who were not in the panel and were working at Patna, were also appointed in the self same post, without offering any appointment to the writ petitioner. 5. Before the learned Single Judge the appellants urged that the candidate, who was in position No. 18 on the panel. was a Scheduled Caste candidate and since the appellants maintained 40 point roster, they were, in accordance with the mandate or the said order, obliged to give appointment to the said candidate and therefore, there has been no discrimination. The appellants also urged before the learned Single Judge that the two candidates, who were not in the panel but were given employment, were working at Patna Airport, but the posts in which they were working were abolished, requiring their re-mastering, which was done in accordance with the relevant roster position. 6. The learned Single Judge dealt with the respective contentions of the parties by an elaborate judgment and came to the aforesaid conclusion. 7. At this stage it should be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition, an order was passed on 13th September, 1991 directing the appellants to keep one post vacant. The said order is still in force. 8. Before us it was urged on behalf of the appellants that according to the 40 point roster of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, maintained by the appellants, a candidate of the Scheduled Caste category was entitled to the appointment and not the writ petitioner. It was also urged that appointments offered to two persons, who were not in the panel, had been effected to put them into the mainstream of the clerical cadre due to abolition of their original cadre, namely, Airport Ticketing Clerk, requiring their re-mastering and that two was done in accordance with the relevant roster position. It was also urged that appointments offered to two persons, who were not in the panel, had been effected to put them into the mainstream of the clerical cadre due to abolition of their original cadre, namely, Airport Ticketing Clerk, requiring their re-mastering and that two was done in accordance with the relevant roster position. It was contended that such re-mastering did not at all affect the legal right, if any, of the writ petitioner. 9. In pursuance of the direction of the previous Division Bench, the original roster had been produced before us from where it appeared that at the beginning of the appointing year 19881, two Scheduled Castes reservations and one Scheduled Caste reservation were brought forward. In the 3rd supplementary affidavit filed by Sri. Tapan Kumar Gupta on behalf of the appellants, pursuant to the leave granted by the previous Division Bench, it was stated that the roster for recruitment of the relevant post prior to 1988 is not traceable. Therefore, the reserved position brought forward could not be justified with proper materials. The roster which was produced before us started with point No. 36. Point No.7 coming after point No.1 after point No. 40 is reserved for Scheduled Caste This point remained not filled up with a remark “JHAO”. In the said supplementary affidavit it was contended that the said point was earmarked for Jharsuguda and the same remained unfilled. It was then stated that this point ought to have been subjected to de-reservation in the absence of a suitable Scheduled Caste candidate, but, however, for non-availability of the relevant records it cannot be ascertained as to whether some unreserved candidate could not be found and if found, why the said individual did not join. Again point No. 17 is reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates which remained not filled up. In the said affidavit it was stated that de-reservation process ought to have been restored in respect of this point but somehow neither Scheduled Tribe, nor unreserved candidates after de-reservation was availab1e and as such relevant cage remained blank. Roster point No. 18 is unreserved, which also remained blank. It was stated in the said affidavit that it was a mistake on the part of the concerned dealing assistant and inadvertently the requisite entries were not filled in. Roster point No. 18 is unreserved, which also remained blank. It was stated in the said affidavit that it was a mistake on the part of the concerned dealing assistant and inadvertently the requisite entries were not filled in. it was added that the office record showed that the position of a Junior Clerk at Lal Bari was going to fall vacant as the individual working in the said position was due for promotion to the next higher position. In that view of the matter, steps were taken to recruit a junior clerk through the local Employment Exchange but the person so promoted made a representation for reversion and such representation was acceded and therefore, the person who was working in the said post, continued to work in the same post on reversion. It was also stated that in July 1991, Lal Bari became a part of North-Eastern region, Gauhati and thereby ceased to be a part of Calcutta region. Point. Nos. 34 and 35 remained unfilled up. It appears that some endorsements were made in the cages as against those points but subsequently they were scored off. In the said affidavit it was stated that those two points were earmarked for Dimapur and Dibrugarh and accordingly interviews were taken on 3rd September. 1990 at Dibrugarh for filling up the said posts but no suitable candidate could be found. It was then stated that Dimapur and Dibrugarh became part of North Eastern region with effect from 25th July, 1991 and therefore, Calcutta legion ceased to have jurisdiction or administrative controls over the said offices/stations. It was stated that point No. 37 was filled up at Gauhati on 5th September. 1990 when Gauhati was within the administrative controls of the Calcutta region. It is pertinent to mention here that on our request made to the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, to produce documents relating to reservation of post to be filled up by the regional candidates of Jharsuguda, Gaubati, Dimapur, Dibrugarh etc., we received a flat answer that no such document is available, although the 3rd supplementary affidavit has been affirmed by the deponent based on informations received by him from records. 10. 10. The Rules to be observed in maintaining the roster have been provided in Appendix A to the Brochure on reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in services, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Trainee, New Delhi Rule 3 of the said Rule provides as follows :– “No gap should be left in the roster in filling vacancies and if a reserved vacancy (at, say the 25th point of the roster) has, for want of a suitable Scheduled Caste candidate, to be treated as unreserved, the candidate appointed should be shown against that point; but if a Scheduled Caste candidate cannot be recruited against an unreserved vacancy later in the year, the reservations should be carried forward to the following year and after the Scheduled Caste quota for the latter year has been filled, the first unreserved vacancy in that year (say, the 32nd point) should be treated as reserved for Scheduled Castes.” 11. If the concerned roster had been filled up In accordance with the said Rule, then more than one post would have remained available for being filled up by the writ petitioner. Therefore, there is no justification to give preference to the person in 18th position over the petitioner, who was in the 9th position. 12. We, therefore, concluded on careful examination of the roster in the perspective of the averments made in the petition and the supplementary affidavits filed from time to time and we are constrained to observe that the roster has not been maintained in the desired manner. In the first place, the reserved position brought forward could not be justified with proper materials; secondly, there have been alterations in the roster, which appeared to be inconsistent and inexplicable, in some cases. There are irregularities in filling up both the direct and reserved positions in the roster. Leaving aside all other irregularities, the present petitioner's case appears to have been undeniably prejudiced by filling up the position of direct recruits with persons of Reserved category and In leaving gaps in the roster. In filling up vacancies immediately before the petitioner, the seriality has not been maintained and some earlier vacancies have' been kept unfilled though the positions thereafter immediately preceding the petitioner have been filled up. In filling up vacancies immediately before the petitioner, the seriality has not been maintained and some earlier vacancies have' been kept unfilled though the positions thereafter immediately preceding the petitioner have been filled up. The justifications advanced in the supplementary affidavit in regard thereto are no justifications at all and in any event unsupported by any material on record, as admitted in the affidavit justifying the same. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, could not also throw any light in the matter in the absence of materials, which admittedly are not• available. Assuming that two recruitments of candidates, not in the panel, were for the purpose of re-mastering and assuming that the same could be lawfully done, but even then the position is not altered in view of the gaps in the roster not filled up at all. 13. In the context of the aforesaid factual position, we do not feel convinced to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Judge and the order passed by him on the basis of such findings. The learned Trial Judge is perfectly justified in directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner. As aforesaid, one post has been kept reserved and that post may now be utilised for implementing the order of the learned Trial Judge. Since the matter has been delayed for quite sometime, we desire that the appellants should act promptly in taking steps in accordance with the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs assessed at 60 GMs. The roster produced by the Respondent's Counsel be returned. Ghosh, J : I agree.