JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The Respondents are the appellants in this appeal. They have challenged the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 12th August, 1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 3903 of 1995, by which the appointments made in favour of the Respondents-Appellants have been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appointments made after expiry of life of the panel. 2. The brief fact lies in a narrow compass. 3. An advertisement was published by the Respondent-Rajendra Agricultural University on 7th October, 1991 for appointment against Class - III and IV posts under the University. The appellants (Respondents in the writ petition), the Respondents (the writ petitioners) and others applied and appeared before the Selection Committee for interview held on 8th and 9th August, 1992. After such selection, a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee in January, 1993. In the meantime, Bihar Ordinance No. 33 of 1991, "The Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Ordinance, 1991" (subsequently made Bihar Act 3 of 1992), came in force. As advertisement was issued earlier, to find out the question of applicability of the Reservation Act aforesaid, the State Government prohibited the Respondent-University from making any appointment in pursuance of the advertisement in question. 4. It appears that the selection made in pursuance of advertisement dated 10th October, 1991 was challenged by certain persons before this Court and ultimately the matter moved upto Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 13435 initially restrained the University from making any appointment but the order of stay was ultimately vacated in February, 1995. After vacation of stay, the Vice-Chancellor of the University appointed the selected candidates, i.e. these appellants, against their respective posts, immediately thereafter. 5. The Respondents-writ petitioners challenged the appointments of appellants in C.W.J.C. No. 3903 of 1995 on the ground that it was out of a dead panel. According to them, the panel was approved by the Selection Committee in January, 1993, so after one year of such approval, no appointment could have been made out of such dead panel, in the year 1995. 6. The appellants as well as the University appeared and contested the writ petition. According to them, the panel was approved by the Selection Committee in January, 1993, so after one year of such approval, no appointment could have been made out of such dead panel, in the year 1995. 6. The appellants as well as the University appeared and contested the writ petition. On their behalf, while the background far making appointments after delay, in the year 1995, was highlighted and brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the life of panel was extended by the Vice-Chancellor being vested with power under sections 22(4) and (6) of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1987 (far short the Act). The learned Single Judge rejected the plea taken by the appellants and the Respondent-University and held that the Vice-Chancellor had no jurisdiction to extend the life of a panel and appointments of appellants having made after one year from the date of approval of panel were illegal and set aside the appointments. 7. From the pleadings made by the parties and submissions as advanced, it is clear that. the panel was approved by the Selection Committee in January, 1993. However, appointments were made after two years in the year 1995. 8. The questions to be determined in this case are (a) whether the appointments of appellants were illegal? and (b) whether the Vice-Chancellar .of the University has jurisdiction to extend the life of a panel ? In this connection, the two provisions namely clause 17.2. of the Rajendra Agriculture University Statute (far short 'Statute') and sections 22 (4) and (6) of the Rajendra Agriculture University Act (far short 'the Act' are relevant). Clause 17.2 of the Statute prescribes procedure of selection and relevant portion of the said Clause 17.2 reads, as follows: "The period of validity of any panel prepared by the Selection Committee shall be one year from the date of its recommendation." From plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that life of a panel is only one year, from the date of recommendation of the Selection Committee. Under section 22 (6) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has been vested with the powers to take action in emergency which is set out hereunder : "22 (6). Under section 22 (6) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has been vested with the powers to take action in emergency which is set out hereunder : "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 authorities 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." The other provision, namely, section 22(4) of the Act reminds the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of the Act and the statutes and the Regulations and to exercise such powers as may be necessary on that behalf. 9. In the present case, before the learned Single Judge, the parties brought on record the fact that the panel was prepared and approved in January, 1993, but it was not brought on record the date of recommendation made out of such panel. The "approval" of a panel and making "recommendation" out of such panel are two different acts. While a panel is approved by the appropriate authority, it is not necessary that the recommendation is to be made simultaneously, at the same time, and on the same date. The date of such recommendation may vary from the date of approval of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. 10. In the instant case, as the parties failed to give the date of recommendation made in pursuance of a panel prepared, in absence of such date, it was not desirable for the learned Single Judge to hold whether the panel lost its force or not. According to me, the learned Single Judge failed to take into note the date of recommendation of Selection Committee made out of the approved panel, and in absence of such date, the finding of learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge failed to take into note the order of prohibition made by the State Government to make appointment out of the panel, in question, and subsequent order of stay passed by the Supreme Court vacated in February, 1995. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to what is the date of recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is not clear from the pleadings of the parties as to what is the date of recommendation of the Selection Committee. Even if it is assumed that the recommendation has been made in January, 1993, it cannot be stated to have lost its force on completion of one year period in view of order of prohibition and stay made by the State Government and then by the Supreme Court, the panel having not lost its force in its natural course. 11. A Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Sheo Shankar Jha and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1990 (1) P.L.J.R. 298 dealt with similar circumstances. In the said case, the advertisement stipulated normal life of a panel for 12 months, but power was vested with the authority to continue for years. This Court in the said case, held as follows : "There is yet another aspect of the said advertisement, which needs consideration. The first part of the advertisement is clear and definite, which fixes the normal life of a panel for twelve months. The second part is uncertain and obscure and gives unbriddied power to the authority concerned to allow it to continue for years. It is well-settled that in order to stand the test of reasonableness the action of the Government must not only be free from arbitrariness, but should also be predictable. So harmonious construction of the two parts of the above quoted advertisement manifestly leads to the inference that the first part of the said advertisement fixes the life of the panel for twelve months and the second part makes provision for use of such panel only in exceptional circumstances. It is difficult to enumerate all circumstances, in which the State Government may use a panel even after expiry of twelve months for making appointment and posting. Generally, sudden transfer, serious ailment and premature death of one working on the post may necessitate use of the panel even after expiry of twelve months from the date of its approval. Sometimes, it may not be possible for the State Government to prepare a fresh panel because of prolonged strike of the employees or natural catastrophe. Generally, sudden transfer, serious ailment and premature death of one working on the post may necessitate use of the panel even after expiry of twelve months from the date of its approval. Sometimes, it may not be possible for the State Government to prepare a fresh panel because of prolonged strike of the employees or natural catastrophe. So, it is only in pressing necessity and exceptional circumstance that after expiry of twelve months from the date of its approval by the State Government, a panel may be used for making appointment or posting. Any interpretation other than this will render the first part meaningless." 12. In the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 8915/93), disposed of on 1.2.94, a Division Bench of this Court held that if a panel is not allowed to be operative even during its life period for erroneous, unreasonable and irrelevant reasons, then it will be quite unjust to defeat the cases of empanelled candidate on the plea that the panel lapsed after expiry of period fixed for its operation. 13. In this case, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has been clothed with the power to pass order in emergency under sub-section (6) of section 22 of the Act. Under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Act casts duty on the Vice-Chancellor to ensure faithful observance of the provisions of the Act and the Statute and to exercise such powers as may be necessary on that behalf. If a panel prepared is given effect because of order of prohibition by the State Government or stay by the Supreme Court, according to me, in terms with the aforesaid provisions of section 22 of the Act, to fill up the post because of urgent necessity of man power, and to ensure the faithful observance of the Statute, it is well within jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to extend the life of the panel. This has been done in the present case, which is also in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Sheo Shankar Jha (supra) and Sunil Kumar Singh (supra). 14. Thus I find no illegality in making appointments made in the year 1995, after vacation of stay by the Supreme Court, out of a panel approved in January, 1993. 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands allowed. Sheo Shankar Jha (supra) and Sunil Kumar Singh (supra). 14. Thus I find no illegality in making appointments made in the year 1995, after vacation of stay by the Supreme Court, out of a panel approved in January, 1993. 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12th August, 1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 3903 of 1995 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there will be no order, as to costs. I agree.