JUDGMENT The Court : In this case the admitted position is that after due selection process and selection of 220 candidates were empanelled after following the recruitment rules in the categories of Helper of Engineering, Stores & Purchases; and Surface Transport Division of Indian Airlines out of which 61 candidates were empanelled from Scheduled Castes, 15 from Schedule Tribes and 6 from Ex-Serviceman categories. 2. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been admitted that all the writ petitioners who are appellants herein were empanelled according to the recruitment rules. It is not in dispute that for some reasons or other which might or might not have been within the control of the Indian Airlines, the life of panel extended from time to time and that after some years the life of the panel was not extended, but the empanelled candidates are working as Casual Workers under the Indian Airlines without any break. 3. Before final hearing of this appeal we directed the learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Airlines to give the views of the authorities in the matter and we were told that several panels were made including in commercial wing. 4. To-day, Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Airlines produced a written instruction from his clients wherefrom it appears that the Indian Airlines has framed a scheme for regularisation of casual employees working at Calcutta in which it was proposed as hereunder: "1. All the casuals irrespective of the fact that names were borne on any panel or not will be treated at par provided they have worked for 90 days as casual during the last three years. 2. Notification will be issued inviting applications from casual employees for the post of Helpers in Commercial, Engineering, Stores, Ground Support, Catering, Canteens and Peons..." 5. Law on regularisation and the principles for which regularisation should be made was laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases including the case of Jacob vs. Kerala Water Authority, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 . In the recent judgments of the Supreme Court, it was laid down that unless initial recruitment has been made by following the Recruitment Rules and the Recruitment Process, the question of regularisation will not arise. 6. In the recent judgments of the Supreme Court, it was laid down that unless initial recruitment has been made by following the Recruitment Rules and the Recruitment Process, the question of regularisation will not arise. 6. Accordingly, in so far as persons who were selected and were empanelled they have their right to be regularised under the old, as well as in the new views of the Supreme Court as initial recruitment was made after following the recruitment rules. This position is admitted. In that view of the matter, from the scheme framed by the Indian Airlines and produced before this Court all the casuals irrespective of the fact that names were borne on any panel or not will be treated at par, but those who were not empanelled cannot be treated at par with the selected candidates by the Indian Airlines Authority which will be discriminatory. 7. Accordingly, if any vacancies are there and in future vacancies, candidates who were empanelled and selected on the basis of Recruitment Rules, their regularisation shall be made first in those regular posts which are there or will be there and thereafter if any further vacancies are there, the posts can be filled up from the other casual workers who were working without any selection on the basis of selection to be made following the Recruitment Rules afresh. 8. It is also an admitted position that on the basis of selection made persons concerned who were empanelled following the Recruitment Rules were made to work as Casual Workers and as their initial recruitment was made strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and following the recruitment process, their right of regularisation on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the old cases as well as in the recent cases cannot be deemed and should be made as stated hereinabove. 9. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of Deb Narayan Chatterjee and Ors. 9. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of Deb Narayan Chatterjee and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1997 (II) CHN 534 wherein following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1985) 30 ATC 57 : 1995 (Supp-II) SCC 230 the learned Judge held as hereunder : “although an empanelled candidate does not require an indefeasible right of appointment, yet the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment therefrom at its whims and caprice.” 10. We are clearly of the view, that following the principles of regularisation a large number of employees whose initial appointments have been made following the Recruitment Rules and procedures have to be regularised in the vacancies if exists and in the vacancies which will be available in future and without absorbing them on regular basis the posts should not be filled up. 11. Accordingly, the judgment and order, dated March 19, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in C.O. 5587 (W) of 1994 stands modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal thus allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Airlines has prayed for stay of operation of this order, which was considered and refused. 14. It is made clear that no other connected matters have been assigned by the learned Chief Justice before this Court. Appeal allowed.