JUDGMENT Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.: Originally this writ petition was filed by 14 petitioners for direction of appointment under the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP, for short). Their grievance is that they are all physically handicapped persons and their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for consideration of appointment in the Durgapur Steel Plant and they were also interviewed, by the DSP authorities sometime in 1984, but thereafter they were not given any appointment. However, during the continuance of this writ proceeding it transpired from the affidavits exchanged by the parties that out of the 14 writ petitioners only seven were empanelled under various categories while the remaining seven were not at all empanelled for any post. In view of the above noted position the writ petition was ultimately pressed for seven of the writ petitioners only who were empanelled and the case was not at all pressed for the remaining seven writ petitioners out of fourteen. The writ petitioners who were empanelled are writ petitioners nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13. Of them, the writ petitioners nos. 11, 12 and 13 were empanelled for the posts of Assistant. Further, annexure-X to the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 13th January, 1993 shows that the writ petitioner no. 1 was empanelled at serial no. 1 for the post of Peon, the writ petitioners nos. 2 and 5 were empanelled at serial nos. 3 and 2 respectively for the posts of Mali and the writ petitioner no. 6 was empanelled at serial no. 3 for the post of unskilled worker (USW) for Non-Works Department, vide, the select list prepared on 22nd March, 1985 which is annexure-X to the said affidavit-in-opposition. 2. It is the contention of the respondents DSP authorities that although the names of the said petitioners were empanelled for appointment under different categories in the quota for handicapped persons, yet no appointment could be given to them because of the embargo imposed on the creation of posts at the relevant time and also because the panel expired in due course by efflux of time. The interview of the eligible candidates were held, by the DSP authorities during the period from 18th June, 1984 to 2nd July, 1984 and, as we have seen, panels of successful candidates for various posts were prepared in March, 1985. The interview of the eligible candidates were held, by the DSP authorities during the period from 18th June, 1984 to 2nd July, 1984 and, as we have seen, panels of successful candidates for various posts were prepared in March, 1985. It is the contention of the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition that after preliminary selection of the candidates the Chief Personnel Manager of the DSP sent proposal to the Steel Authority of India by his letter dated the 16th September, 1985 to increase the manpower in the plant but the Additional Director (Personnel) of Steel Authority of India by a letter dated the 27th September, 1985 informed the Chief Personnel Manager, DSP the decision of the Board taken in the meeting held in June 1985 that the manpower budget for 1985-86 would be only the men in position at the start of the year, and thereafter by another letter dated the 9th November, 1985 the Steel Authority of India conveyed the decision that the manpower freeze for 1985-86 should continue for 1986-87 also and the manpower budgets for 1985-86 (revised) and 1986-87 (original) should accordingly be worked out. It is also the case of the respondents that in view of the circular dated the 29th/31st October, 1979 as issued by the concerned authority of the DSP, panels drawn in respect of promotion as well as recruitment, remain valid for six months. It is also not in dispute that there are provisions for keeping 3% of posts reserved for physically handicapped persons in group-C and group-D posts in the DSP. We thus find that there are provisions for reservation of 3% posts for handicapped persons. Obviously keeping that in view the DSP authorities in 1984 took interview of physically handicapped candidates sponsored by employment exchange for consideration of empanelment for appointment in various posts under the reserved quota and ultimately in March 1985 prepared select, lists of physically handicapped candidates, for various categories of posts. The plea of embargo on expansion of manpower, as taken by the respondents, cannot however be treated as a good plea at all, for defeating the cause of the petitioners, because as we have seen, the embargo was on expansion of manpower and not on filling up of existing posts which might fall vacant for various reasons, like, resignation, promotion, retirement, etc. The plea of expiry of the life of the panel also does not seem to be convincing in this case because it will appear from the affidavits affirmed on behalf of the respondents that the DSP authorities wrote to the Steel Authority of India proposing expansion of their manpower in the plant on 16th September, 1985 but the Steel Authority of India banned any expansion, as a result of which the empanelled candidates could not be given appointment before the panels expired six months after the date of preparation of the panels. As we have seen, the panels were prepared on 22nd March, 1985 and that being so, if it were to expire at the end of six months it would have expired on 22nd September, 1985. But even according to the case of the respondents the DSP authorities wrote to the Steel Authority of India on 16th September, 1985, that is, only about five or six days before the expiry of the life of the panels proposing expansion of manpower in the plant. Since virtually it is the stand of the respondents that with a view to facilitating appointment of physically handicapped persons from the panel prepared by them they wrote to the Steel Authority of India proposing expansion of manpower only a few days before the expiry of the initial panel-period of six months, it is evident from this fact alone that the authorities concerned intended to keep the panels alive beyond the initial period of six months and also treated the same accordingly and that being so the respondents cannot retract from that position now to tell that the panel expired at the end of six months from the date of its preparation. Apart from this it is also to be pointed out that the authorities concerned in fact gave appointment from the concerned panels prepared in March 1985 long after the expiry of the original period of validity of the panels thereby demonstratively giving effect to their earlier exhibited intention to keep the panels alive beyond the initial period of six months. 3. It has been categorically stated in the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the petitioners that one Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee finding place against serial no. 4 for the post of USW in the panel prepared in March 1985 was given appointment in 1989 ignoring the petitioner no. 3. It has been categorically stated in the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the petitioners that one Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee finding place against serial no. 4 for the post of USW in the panel prepared in March 1985 was given appointment in 1989 ignoring the petitioner no. 6 who was also empanelled under the same category at serial no. 3. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 4th April, 1997 it is stated that the appointment of Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee cannot be equated with the petitioners. A very desperate plea has been taken by the respondents in respect of Nisith Kr. Banerjee whom they have given appointment even in 1989 ignoring the seniority of others including the petitioner No.6 inspite of the fact that the initial period of six months from the date of preparation of the panel expired long back. It is stated in the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition that this Nisith Kr. Banerjee was not only included in the select list of 1985 but he was also selected in 1981 for three separate categories of posts and in view of the restraint order issued by the Corporate Office in the matter of increasing the manpower, the DSP could not process the selection already made in respect of the physically handicapped persons and since a post of Duftory in the Medical Organisation of Durgapur Steel Plant was required to be filled up without delay and as Nisith Kr. Banerjee was the only selected candidate for the post of Duftory in 1981 and also a physically handicapped person and considering his merit in 1981 selection as also his date of birth the management decided to fill the post of Duftory by appointing Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee and this is how he was appointed. It is very difficult to appreciate the plea of the respondents in this respect. If a panel expires after a lapse of six months then the 1981 panel also must have expired long back and at any rate there cannot be any existence of 1981 panel after the preparation of the 1985 panel. The appointment given to Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee from the 1985 panel ignoring the position of others in the panel prepared in 1985 is also a grossly arbitrary and discriminatory act on the part of the DSP authorities. At any rate the appointment of Sri Nisith Kr. The appointment given to Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee from the 1985 panel ignoring the position of others in the panel prepared in 1985 is also a grossly arbitrary and discriminatory act on the part of the DSP authorities. At any rate the appointment of Sri Nisith Kr. Banerjee shows that the 1985 panel was yet treated as a live panel and that is how Nisith Kr. Banerjee could have been given appointment in 1989 from that panel. The respondents cannot approbate and reprobate. If they say that a panel expires after six months then it expires definitely. They cannot say that they can make a pick and choose from the expired panel. However, one thing is certain that the panel of 1985 must have been treated as a live panel and was acted upon even in 1989 by giving appointment to Nisith Kr. Banerjee from that panel although ignoring the seniority-position of others. Then again one Prasanta Kr. Sinha who found place against serial no. 1 for the post in category 4-Misc. in the 1985 panel was given appointment to the post of School Attendant (Music) in April 1991. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 4th April, 1997 it is stated that this Prasanta Kr. Sinha was offered appointment in the interest of students at large. It is therefore evident that even in 1991 the respondents were giving appointment, for whatever reason might it. be, from the said panel which was prepared in 1985. This shows that even in 1991 the DSP authorities acted upon the 1985 panel. Therefore when it is established from the glaring facts as discussed above that the respondents not only intended to keep the panel alive even after the initial period of six months but in fact also acted upon that panel by giving appointment from that panel in 1989 as well as in 1991 long after the initial period of six months they cannot now take the plea by retracing their steps that the panel became nonexistent after the expiry of the initial period of six months. The fact remains that the DSP authorities chose to keep the panel alive beyond six months. 4. That the DSP authorities considered it necessary and fit to keep the panel alive in the associated circumstances even after the expiry of the initial period of six months is indeed a very sensible and rational step. The fact remains that the DSP authorities chose to keep the panel alive beyond six months. 4. That the DSP authorities considered it necessary and fit to keep the panel alive in the associated circumstances even after the expiry of the initial period of six months is indeed a very sensible and rational step. It will appear from the paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 13th January, 1993 that in the year 1983 the DSP authorities proposed to recruit some handicapped persons in various posts in their plant and accordingly requisitioned names of eligible handicapped candidates from the employment exchange and interview of eligible candidates sponsored by the employment exchange was held in June and July 1984 and the panel was ultimately prepared on 22nd March, 1984. It would thus appear that the preparation of the panel was the end-product of a series of exercises covering a period of nearly two years from 1983 to 1985. We have also to notice that not a single appointment was given from that panel within the period of six months from the date of its preparation. It cannot be sensibly presumed that the DSP authorities prepared the panel through a series of protracted exercises covering a period of about two years only for the sake of fun of it to say that the panel expired six months after its preparation even when not a single appointment was given from that panel. Since, for whatever reason might it be, the DSP authorities could not give a single appointment within the initial period of six months of preparation of the panel which was prepared after an exercise covering a period of about two years, a rational and sensible approach to the matter therefore legitimately warranted the panel to be treated and kept alive even after the expiry of the initial period of six months so that the entire exercise of preparing a panel with an effort spread over a period of about two years, instead of becoming wholly abortive, could rather serve a meaningful purpose without allowing the panel to find its place in the waste paper busket before it is given any effect whatsoever simply on the ground that the initial period of six months has elapsed. In the circumstances it was a right step on the part of the DSP authorities that they thought it sensible and rational to treat the panel as alive even after the expiry of the initial period of six months so that the panel could serve its intended purpose, a purpose for which it was prepared, because certainly a panel is not prepared only for the sake of preparing it and then throwing it into the waste paper busket on the ground of efflux of time before a single appointment could be given from that panel, particularly when the original life-period of the panel is as short as only six months as against an exercise which takes about two years to complete the preparation of such panel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I therefore find that for very sensible and rational reasons the DSP authorities intended to keep the panel alive beyond six months and consistent with their such intention they treated the panel as alive even beyond six months and also gave appointment from that panel in 1989 as well as in 1991 obviously by treating the panel as alive. I would however like to make it clear that I am not saying that a panel which is prepared by carrying on exercises covering a long period should for that reason alone remain alive even after the expiry of the period of its original life. What I want to emphasise is that if inspite of the expiry of the initial period of its life a panel is treated as alive by the concerned authorities, either by words or by acts, in that case the court cannot overlook that fact in deciding a lis in which that fact may have a relevant impact. 5. In paragraph 14 of the supplementary affidavit it is stated by the petitioners that from 1984 to 1996 only two handicapped persons were appointed namely, the above named Prasanta Kr. Sinha and Nisith Kr. Banerjee against 3% reservation of physically handicapped persons. A chart, annexure-X3 also has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit showing general recruitment and recruitment of handicapped persons from 1984 to 1996 on the basis of available information. Sinha and Nisith Kr. Banerjee against 3% reservation of physically handicapped persons. A chart, annexure-X3 also has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit showing general recruitment and recruitment of handicapped persons from 1984 to 1996 on the basis of available information. From that chart it will appear that the DSP authorities gave appointment to nearly 4,000 persons during the period from 1984 to 1996 and out of them only two persons were given appointment in the quota of handicapped persons. Roughly speaking for the 4,000 posts filled up during the period of 1984-1996 about 120 posts should have been filled up by appointing handicapped persons in the 3% reservation quota for them. But as we have seen, only appointment was given to two persons in the handicapped category. The above picture which emerges from the averments made in paragraph 14 of the supplementary affidavit and the annexure-X3 thereto has been dealt with in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 4th April, 1997. Instead of controverting the figures of appointment during the period 1984-1996 as given in the supplementary affidavit the DSP authorities in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition say that the question of reservation of physically handicapped persons under the 3% quota is beyond the scope of the writ application and as such irrelevant and immaterial for disposal of the writ petition. I however fail to understand why this very vital point is irrelevant and immaterial for the disposal of the writ petition. The concerned writ petitioners were empanelled by the DSP authorities as handicapped persons obviously for being considered for appointment against 3% reservation quota for handicapped persons and the petitioners' core grievance in this writ petition is that inspite of empanelment they have not been given appointment under the reserved quota and the authorities concerned have violated their legal obligation to fill up the quota reserved for handicapped persons. Therefore this point, namely the total number of appointments made during the relevant period from the handicapped persons under the 3% reserved quota is very much relevant in connection with a decision in the writ petition. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the prayer in the writ petition is also not entertainable because the writ petitioners have prayed for appointment straightway which the court cannot direct. 6. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the prayer in the writ petition is also not entertainable because the writ petitioners have prayed for appointment straightway which the court cannot direct. In my opinion when the core point of the grievance is clear and is specifically spelt-out in the writ petition and the same makes out a presentable case within the ambit of the writ jurisdiction of the court, the court can certainly give appropriate relief if considered necessary by moulding the prayer in the writ petition. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on 4th April, 1997 that the chart annexed to the supplementary affidavit is vague and baseless and the allegations are denied and disputed. Well, this is only a value denial. The petitioners have given in the chart, annexure-X3 to the supplementary affidavit the yearwise break up of appointments made in the different categories under different heads during the period 1984-1996. If this chart is baseless and the allegations made in that connection are disputed, the DSP authorities should have come out with the actual facts and figures of the appointments made during that period. That they did not do. They have dealt with the specific allegations in this respect by making a simple and vague denial. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the DSP authorities preferred an appeal against an interim order passed by this court in the present writ proceeding and in the appeal court also, inspite of direction of the appeal court, the DSP authorities failed to produce the appointment figures including the appointment of handicapped persons and ultimately withdrew that appeal. Be that as it may, here as we have seen, the petitioners have given definite and specific figures of appointment under different categories during the period 1984-1996. The DSP authorities being the appointing authorities have the full knowledge, particulars and records of the appointments made during that period. Therefore if the figures of appointments given by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit are not correct, in that case the DSP authorities could and should have disclosed the actual yearwise figures of appointments in their affidavit-in-opposition which they carefully avoided to do. Therefore if the figures of appointments given by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit are not correct, in that case the DSP authorities could and should have disclosed the actual yearwise figures of appointments in their affidavit-in-opposition which they carefully avoided to do. In paragraph 12 of the said affidavit-in-opposition it is only stated that between the year of 1977 and 1991 more appointments were given to the physically handicapped persons than the required percentage. They however do not disclose any figure of appointments given to the handicapped persons. That being so, under the rule of pleadings the appointment figures as given in the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners have to be accepted and in that case it will be seen that virtually no appointment was given to handicapped persons except two during the period 1984-1996 although appointment was given to about 4,000 persons during that period. In paragraph 15 of the supplementary affidavit the petitioners have given figures of appointments in the different posts made after the interim order dated the 5th January, 1994 was passed wherein this court directed that during the pendency of the writ application if the respondents proceeded to make any new appointment to the posts mentioned therein in that case the respondents before giving any appointment to the said posts would also consider the case of the petitioners who were empanelled. It is the grievance of the petitioners that inspite of that order they were not given any appointment nor did the respondents consider their case in compliance with the interim order of this court although they gave appointment to different persons under different categories as mentioned in the said paragraph 15 of the supplementary affidavit. Some of the appointments might have been made on compassionate ground and some in the works area for which the handicapped persons might not be suitable. But as we have seen the respondents' did not disclose the figures of appointments, and even if it is assumed that some appointments were given on compassionate ground and some in Works area where handicapped persons might be unsuitable yet it can be reasonably visualised that a large number of posts would have been covered by the 3% reservation for the handicapped persons against the appointment of about 4,000 persons which appear to have been made during the period 1984-1996 as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit. 7. 7. The petitioners have also filed a contempt application for noncompliance of the court's interim order. In that connection the respondents however produced records before the court from which it appeared that the petitioners case was considered but they were not given appointment on the ground that the panel expired long back. Although that plea is found not tenable for reasons elaborately discussed above, yet of course I do not hold them guilty of contempt because they have considered the case of the petitioners but did not give appointment to them for reasons which they thought were good and valid. As we have seen the respondents treated the 1985 panel as valid even in 1989 and 1991 by giving appointment from that panel, yet as against about 4,000 appointments given during the period 1984-1996 they did not give adequate appointment in the handicapped quota although the candidates for that quota were available in the 1985 panel. It is needless to mention that the respondents cannot, by whim or caprice defeat the claim of the handicapped persons for which certain quota of posts is reserved, but this is precisely what has been lamentably done by the DSP authorities by not giving appointment to the handicapped persons except two from the 1985 panel as against appointment of nearly 4,000 persons in the different categories during the period 1984-1996. This is highly arbitrary and reprehensible. In view of the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that justice demands that the court should intervene in this case to ensure that the reservation for handicapped persons is not frustrated by any whimsical, farcical or arbitrary action or approach of the DSP authorities and they should be activated to give appointment to the available candidates from the 1985 panel of handicapped persons before they proceed to give any appointment to any post in any Non-Works area. It is needless to mention that the writ petitioners nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12 and 13 will be treated as available candidates of the 1985 panel. It may be mentioned here that the nomenclature of many of the posts in the DSP has been changed since 1992 and the 1985 panel shall be read accordingly. 8. The learned Advocate for the respondents referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Md. It may be mentioned here that the nomenclature of many of the posts in the DSP has been changed since 1992 and the 1985 panel shall be read accordingly. 8. The learned Advocate for the respondents referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Md. Kalimuddin, AIR 1996 SC 1145 in support of his argument that the High Court cannot continue a select list which has expired by efflux of time. As we have seen, in the present case the select list is not being continued by this Court inspite of its expiry. In the present case the select list has been continued, as we have seen, by the DSP authorities themselves which I have already discussed. If the select list has already been treated as continuing by the concerned authorities themselves then they cannot make a pick and choose and say conveniently that the list has already expired when as a matter of fact they themselves have treated the list as continuing even after the expiry of its initial life period and have given effect to its continuing existence by making subsequent appointment from the panel. The learned Advocate for the respondents also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Secretariate Asstt. S. E. Union, 1986 AIR 1994 SC 736 in support of his argument that a person who is selected does not on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the petitioners relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India (1995) 30 ATC 53 wherein it has been held that it is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected and that he has a right to be considered for appointment, but at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. It has been further observed in the said decision 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 and that there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select list. 9. The plea of delay in filing the writ petition as taken by the respondents is not tenable in view of the fact that the panel in question has been found to be a continuing panel. 10. In view of all the discussions made on the merit of this case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondent authorities will consider the question of giving appointment to the available candidates including the writ petitioners nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 from the 1985 panel of handicapped persons in going to fill up any vacancy hereafter in any post in any Non-Works area or in any department excepting Works area. Since adequate number of appointment was not given earlier in the reserved quota for handicapped persons as already discussed the existing and the future vacancies in the DSP except for Works area shall be treated as reserve category vacancies for handicapped persons which shall not be filled up otherwise, without offering appointment to the available candidates of the 1985 panel of handicapped persons. Every endeavour shall be made by the DSP authorities to give appointment to the available candidates of the 1985 panel within four months. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost is however ordered. The contempt application also stands disposed of without passing any separate order thereon in view of the order passed in disposing of the writ petition. Application allowed.