A. K. Patnaik, J.-- This batch of writ appeals has been referred to us by his Lordship the Chief Justice because of differences in the opinions of learned brother Sri JN Sarma, J. and learned brother Sri PK Sarkar, J. in their two separate judgments delivered on 13.6.97 in the cases categorised in their judgments as category B cases. 2. The facts briefly are that a large number of ad hoc/substitute teachers were working in different schools in the State of Manipur. By a letter dated 4.4.87, the Director of Education (Schools), Govt of Manipur sent acquisition to the Director of Employment, Manipur for direct recruitment of undergraduate teachers in 63 vacancies in different Govt schools of Manipur. In response to the said requisition, candidates were sponsored by the Director of Employment and a DPC/Selection Committee for selection of undergraduate teachers was held during the period from 11.5.89 to 26.5.89. The said committee recommended 106 candidates for appointment to the posts of undergraduate teacher as well as several candidates in the waiting list. The proceeding of the said DPC/Selection Committee was sent by the Director of Education (Schools) to the Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur, in his letter dated 12.12.89 for approval of the Govt. The Govt approval was conveyed to the Director of Education (Schools) in the letter dated 29.12.89 of the Under Secretary (Education), Govt of Manipur. In the said letter it was mentioned that the DPC had recommended 106 candidates but the vacancies to be filled up on direct recruitment basis should be 53. Accordingly, as per the said letter, out of 106 candidates recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee for regular appointment, 53 were to be appointed on regular basis and the remaining 53 were to be appointed purely on officiating basis. By the said letter dated 29.12.89, the Govt also conveyed its approval to the waiting list subject to the condition that not more than 10% of the candidates would be in the panel of waiting list. By the said letter dated 29.12.89, the Govt also conveyed its approval to the waiting list subject to the condition that not more than 10% of the candidates would be in the panel of waiting list. When the appointments were sought to be made of the aforesaid 106 candidates recommended by the QPC/Selection Committee, the ad hoc/substitute teachers who were working in different schools for several years moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution through their Association called “All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association” for their regularisation and for interim orders restraining the State Govt to make appointments pursuant to the said recommendation of a theDPC/Selection Committee and the Govt approval. This Court however refused to grant any interim relief and in the circumstances the said Association filed Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court. By order dated 23.10.90, which is reported in AIR 1991 SC 2088 , the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that all substitute/ad hoc teachers who had put in 5 years of service or more as on 1.10.90 would be regularised without any DPC and the substitute/ad hoc teachers who had rendered less than 5 years of service as on 1.10.90 would be allowed to appear before the DPC constituted exclusively for them and those who were selected by the DPC would be regularised immediately. By the said order dated 23.10.90, the Supreme Court further directed that all substitute/ad hoc teachers who were on service as on 23.10.90 would be allowed to continue till the DPC declared its result of selection and the services of those who did not appear before the DPC or could not be selected by the DPC would be terminated unless their services were required for a further period. With regard to the selection of candidates already made by the aforesaid DPC/Selection Committee, the Supreme Court clarified by the ,said order dated 23.10.90 that if there were additional vacancies in addition to ^ those which had been occupied by the substitute/ad hoc teachers, they might straightway be appointed against those vacancies and the remaining if any might be appointed after the DPC completed the process of selection of substitute/ad hoc teachers for regularisation depending upon the vacancy position. 3. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court all substitute/ad hoc teachers who had put in 5 years of e service as on 1.10.90 were regularised without any DPC and for all ad hoc/ substitute teachers who had put in less than 5 years of service as on 1.10.90, a DPC was held and in the said DPC 1039 substitute/ad hoe teachers were found suitable for regular appointment, but 510 substitute/ad hoc teachers were found unsuitable and were accordingly terminated by order dated 29.6.91 of the Director of Education (Schools). Simultaneously, a requisition was sent by the Director of Education (Schools) to the Director of Employment, Govt of Manipur, for recruitment of 560 teachers through a Class III DPC to be held during the first week of August, 1991. Simultaneously also the 106 candidates who had been recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee held during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 and whose selection had been approved by the State Govt in its letter dated 29th December, 1989 were appointed to 106 posts of undergraduate teacher by order dated 15.7.91 of the Director of Education (Schools). None was however appointed from amongst the candidates in the waiting list recommended by the said DPC/Selection Committee. Thereafter, a written test was held on 29.9.91 for 560 posts of teacher for which a requisition was sent by the Director of Education (Schools) in his letter dated 27.6.91 to the Director of Employment. In these circumstances, some of the candidates who were in the waiting list as recommended by the aforesaid DPC/Selection Committee held during the period from 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 filed Civil Rule No. 4336 of 1991 in which an interim order was passed on 10.10.91 directing the State Govt not to make any appointment of undergraduate teacher until the hearing of interim matter on 23.10.91. The said civil rule on transfer to Imphal Bench of this Court was registered and re­numbered as Civil Rule No. 4 of 1992. The said civil rule on transfer to Imphal Bench of this Court was registered and re­numbered as Civil Rule No. 4 of 1992. In the meanwhile, 168 out of the aforesaid 510 terminated teachers through their Association styled “All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association, Imphal” submitted a representation against their termination to the Minister, Education, Govt of Manipur and on 26.11.91 the Minister, Education, made a note to the effect that he had discussed the matter with the Chief Minister and that he had agreed and decided to regularise the services of the substitute teachers whose particulars were listed in Annexure A/14 and that orders for regularisation of teachers would be issued from the Govt level. When none of the 168 terminated teachers who were included in Annexure A/14 as referred to in the note of the Minister, Education, in the file dated 26.11.91 was regularised, they filed Civil Rule No.77 of 1992 before this Court and on 6.4.92 this Court passed an interim order directing the State Govt to implement the order dated 26.11.91 of the Govt. Pursuant to the said interim order dated 6.4.92, 165 out of the 168 substitute/ad hoc teachers who had been terminated after they were found unsuitable by the DPC/Selection Committee were given appointment by orders dated 21.7.92, 18.8.92, 24.8.92,7.9.92 and 8.9.92 of the Director of Education (Schools). Thereafter, the aforesaid Civil Rules No. 4 of 1992 and 77 of 1992 were heard along with several other civil rules and disposed of by a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.12.92. By the said common judgment dated 15.12,92, the learned Single Judge directed that as soon as the to an on appointment of teachers was lifted and within the period of six months thereafter the State Govt would first appoint the teachers selected by the DPC and thereafter the teachers who could not qualify would be appointed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.92, the State of Manipur filed the present batch of writ appeals as well as other batches of writ appeals which we have today disposed of by separate judgments. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.92, the State of Manipur filed the present batch of writ appeals as well as other batches of writ appeals which we have today disposed of by separate judgments. 4. So far as the present batch of 14 writ appeals are concerned, the case of the appellant-State of Manipur is that the respondents were all candidates who were placed in the waiting list by a DPC/Selection Committee which met during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 for filling up the vacancies in the posts of undergraduate teacher and, therefore, did not have any right for being appointed on regular basis to the posts of undergraduate teacher. In support of this case of the appellant, Mr. Ashok Potsangbarn, learned Advocate General, State of Manipur, cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hoshiar Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 2606, and Ashok Kumar vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board, (1996) 1 SCC 283 . The further case of the appellant as submitted by Mr. Ashok Potsangbarn, learned Advocate General, State of Manipur is that the recommendation of the DPC/Selection Committee regarding selected candidates and wait-listed candidates was, and proved by the Govt by letter dated 29.12.89 and hence the said lists of selected candidates and wait-listed candidates were valid for a maximum period of one year as per the Govt Standing Orders and accordingly the period of validity of the said lists of selected candidates and wait-listed candidates expired after 29.12.90; but writ petitions were filed by the wait-listed candidates only in the year 1991 much after the expiry of the validity of the said list of wait-listed candidates recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee. He contended that the Supreme Court has now held in the cases of State of Bihar vs. Md Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145 ; State of UP vs. Harish Chandra & others, (1996) 9 SCC 309 , and Bihar State Unemployed Civil Engineers' Association vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 2248 , that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct continuance of a list beyond one year where the validity of the list has expired under the Rules and that no direction can be given to the authorities to make appointment from amongst the candidates in a select list the validity of which has expired under the Rules. 5. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, as submitted by Mr. HS Paonam is that the lists of selected candidates and wait listed candidates as recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee which met during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 though approved by the Govt by letter dated 29.12.89 were not acted upon until the matter was finally decided by the Supreme Court on 23.10.90 in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers Association vs. State of Manipur (supra). He further contended that the contention that the validity of the aforesaid lists of selected candidates and wait­listed candidates recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee had expired after the period of one year from 29.12.89 had not been raised by the State of Manipur at any stage and was being raised for the first time before us and should be outright rejected. Regarding the other contention that the respondents were e all wait-listed candidates and had no right to be appointed, he cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma & others, AIR 1994 SC 1804 , and submitted that the respondents having been placed in the waiting list by the DPC/Selection Committee had a right to be considered first for appointment to the vacancies which might have remained after the selected candidates were accommodated and argued that the authorities ignored this position of law and instead arbitrarily appointed a large number of ad hoc/substitute teachers as well as 165 persons who had been found by the DPC to be unsuitable and subsequently the said ad hoc/substitute appointments were regularised by the Govt under its policy of regularisation. Mr. Mr. Paonam further submitted that it is for this reason that learned brother JN Sarma, at pages 27, 28 and 29 of his judgment dated 13.6.97 in the present batch of writ appeals refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.92 of the learned Single Judge directing the State Govt to appoint the respondents and dismissed the present batch of appeals. 6. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 23.10.90 in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur, as reported in AIR 1991 SC 2088 , out-of-which the present controversy between the parties arises is quoted herein below : “... Having heard counsel on both sides, it appears to us that it is necessary to make the following order to avoid further litigation and also to avoid seemingly conflicting interim orders issued by the High Court. 1. All substituted/ad hoc teachers who have put in five years of service or more as on October 1,1990 shall be regularised without any DPC. This regularisation would be subject to their possessing the required qualifications at the time of their initial appointment. 2. The substituted/ad hoc teachers who have rendered less than five years of service as on October 1,1990 shall be allowed to appear before the DPC for selection. The DPC shall be constituted exclusively for them within three months from today. Those who are selected by the DPC shall be regularised immediately thereafter. 3. Twenty three substituted/ad hoc teachers who have been already selected by the DPC shall be regularly appointed forthwith retaining their present-seniority. 4. All the substituted/ad hoc teachers who are in service as on today shall be allowed to continue in service till the DPC declares its result of the selection. The services of those who do not appear before DPC or could not be selected by the DPC could be terminated unless their services are required for a further period. 5. It is said that the DPC earlier convened has selected some persons for direct recruitment. If there are additional vacancies in addition to those which are being occupied by the substituted/ad hoc teachers, they may straightway be appointed against those vacancies and the remaining if any may be appointed after the DPC completes the process of selection of substituted/ad hoc teachers for regularization depending upon the vacancy position. 6. If there are additional vacancies in addition to those which are being occupied by the substituted/ad hoc teachers, they may straightway be appointed against those vacancies and the remaining if any may be appointed after the DPC completes the process of selection of substituted/ad hoc teachers for regularization depending upon the vacancy position. 6. As to the seniority between the direct recruits and the regularised candidates, we make it clear that the direct recruits other than those mentioned in para (3) above, shall be ranked below all the regularised candidates. 7. This order shall govern all those who are in service as substituted/ad hoc teachers. It shall also govern all pending litigations before the High Court or any other Tribunal. The concerned parties shall move the High Court or the Tribunal to dispose of the pending litigations accordingly ....” 7. We have carefully perused the judgment of our learned brother JN Sarma, J. In pages 27, 28 and 29 of the said judgment, he has held that the respondents who were placed in the waiting list were selected by the DPC and yet a large number of ad hoc/substitute/officiating appointments were made and the respondents who were regularly selected by the DPC and waiting for appointment were rotting and systematically ignored by the authorities and this action on the part of the State was not fair and was unjust. Brother Sarma J. has further held that there was no direction in the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur, AIR 1991 SC 2098, denying the claim of the respondents placed in the waiting list. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma, ( AIR 1994 SC 1804 ) cited by Mr. HS Paonant, learned counsel for the h respondents, that in the event of the authorities' choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, the candidates in the waiting list must be considered for appointment de hors the Rules, brother Sarma, J. has finally held that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 15.12.92 of the learned Single Judge impugned in the present batch of writ appeals. Learned brother Sarkar, J. on the other hand, has held in paragraphs 16 and 17 of his separate judgment that it is settled law that candidates who have been recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee have no right for appointment and, therefore, the question of appointment of any wait-listed candidates does not arise, and accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the wait-listed candidates for appointment were liable to be dismissed and the present batch of appeals against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.92 should be allowed. For reasons which we will now indicate, we respectfully agree with the view taken by brother Sarkar, J. that the writ petitions filed by the respondents who were all placed in the waiting list of candidates recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee held during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 were liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.92 of the learned Single Judge in so far as the respondents/ petitioners are concerned was liable to be set aside. 8. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma ( AIR 1994 SC 1804 ) on which brother Sarma, J. has relied on in his judgment, are to the following effect: “..... We do not find any illegality in the observations of the High Court. It is one of option to the appellants. If the appellants do not make any appointments to the posts, the question of considering the claims of the waiting list candidates does not arise. In the event of the appellants' choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, then certainly the candidates in the waiting list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appointment de hors the Rules which may not confer any right on them for future recruitment. It is only an enabling direction to make temporary appointment pending regular recruitment.” It is clear from the aforesaid observations that the appointments from amongst the wait-listed candidates recommended by the DPC could be made only de hors the Rules which was not to confer any right on them for future recruitment and that such appointment was to be made temporarily pending regular recruitment. Thus there is no principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision that the wait-listed candidates are to be considered and appointed on regular basis. Thus there is no principle laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision that the wait-listed candidates are to be considered and appointed on regular basis. Rather the law as has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board, (1996) 1 SCC 283 , cited by the learned Advocate General, Manipur, is that recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional rights of other persons under Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution and that the procedure adopted in appointing the persons kept in the waiting list to the vacancies which had arisen subsequently without being notified for recruitment was unconstitutional. The notified vacancies in the present case as per the requisition of the Director of Education (Schools) to the Director of Employment in his letter dated 4.4.87 pursuant to which the DPC/ selection committee was held during 11.5.89 to 26.5.89 were only 53. As against the said 53 requisitioned vacancies, 106 candidates who were selected and recommended by the DPC/Selection Committee have already been appointed under order dated 15.7.91 of the Director of Education (Schools) pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in the order dated 23.10.90 in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur (supra). Any direction to the State of Manipur to appoint on regular basis the respondents placed in the waiting list by the said DPC/Selection Committee over and above the said 106 candidates selected by the DPC/Selection Committee would be therefore unconstitutional. 9. In the aforesaid case of State of Haryana vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma (supra), however, the Supreme Court has observed that in the event of the State choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, the candidates in the waiting list, though it has lapsed, must be considered for appointment. 9. In the aforesaid case of State of Haryana vs. Mahabir Prasad Sharma (supra), however, the Supreme Court has observed that in the event of the State choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, the candidates in the waiting list, though it has lapsed, must be considered for appointment. But then in direction No. 4 in the order dated 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers' Association vs. State of Manipur (supra) quoted above, the services of those out of the substitute/ad hoc teachers who were in service as on 23.10.90 and who did not appear before the DPC or could not be selected by the DPC were to be terminated unless their services were required for a further period. In Writ Appeal No. 70 of 1994 and other connected writ appeals which were heard analogously with the present batch of writ appeals, we have today delivered a judgment holding that the expression 'unless their services are required for further period' in the said direction No.4 of the order dated 23.10.94 of the Supreme Court gave a protection to the said substitute/ad hoc teachers who had not been selected by the DPC that in case some ad hoc/substitute teachers were to continue in some vacancies till regular recruitment was made to the said vacancies, then the services of such ad hoc/substitute teachers even though they have not been selected by the DPC would be continued. But there was no such direction in the said order dated 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court that the wait-listed candidates recommended by the earlier DPC should be appointed on ad hoc or substitute basis and a« pet-direction No.5 of the said order dated 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court only the "selected candidates" were to be appointed depending on the vacancy position. In our said judgment in Writ Appeal No.70 of 1994 and other connected writ appeals delivered today we have also found from the materials furnished by the State Govt that 344 appointments were made on substitute/ad hoc basis subsequent to the termination of 510 ad hoc/substitute teachers after they were found unsuitable by the DPC and 316 ad hoc/substitute/officiating appointments were regularised pursuant to the Govt decision dated 22.8.94, and we have held that such fresh appointment of candidates who had not been selected as per the Recruitment Rules was contrary to the said protection given to the terminated 510 ad hoc/substitute teachers in the order dated. 23.10.90 of the Supreme Court and was arbitrary and violative of the rights of the said 510 terminated substituted/ ad hoc teachers under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the respondents who were placed in the waiting list by the earlier DPC which met during 11.5.89 to 26.5.8 could not make any claim to the said 344 or 316 vacancies arising after the termination of the 150 substitute/ad hoc teachers an were not entwined to be considered for ad hoc appointment to such vacancies. 10. In the result, we set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.92 to the State of Manipur to appoint the respondents/writ petitioners in the civil rules out which these appeals arise, allow these writ appeals and dismiss the writ petition. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.