BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for alleged willful, deliberate, intentional and contumacious act of the respondent for disregarding/disobeying the order passed by this Court on 9th April, 1997. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have, inter alia, alleged that the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 9th April, 1997 in W. P. 1353 (W) of 1997 by issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue appointment to the petitioners as primary teacher within the district of Howrah. They further, alleged that they were the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher for trained as well as untrained posts and were directed to appear for viva-voce test on 16-8-1993 and 3-8-1993 respectively and were selected in the said interivew. They were placed in the panel prepared in the year 1993 above the other candidates some of them were appointed subsequently but somehow they did not get any appointment. They, therefore, filed the above case for necessary direction. The litigation regarding the preparation of panel and appointments made thereon did not culminate here but a special leave petition was filed in the Apex Court which was decided in the year 1995. The Supreme Court had, however, directed that there shall be district wise list of panel of the successful candidates and the same shall be approved by the Director of School Education. But, when the respondent Council/howrah District Primary School Council failed to discharge its burden by issuing the letter of appointment to none of the petitioners they filed a case being C. O. 4843 (W) of 1996 but due to prolonged pendency of the matter another case was filed before the Court which was disposed of by issuing necessary direction thereon, to the District Primary School Council to extend the life-span of the panel till 24th January, 1997. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners, however, made discreet enquiry and they came to know that the District Primary School Council had issued letter of appointment on 17-1-1997 by adopting pick and choose method selecting own candidates which was not in accordance with merit. Therefore, the petitioners being aggrieved by such deliberate and intentional violation of the Court's order filed this application. Therefore, the petitioners being aggrieved by such deliberate and intentional violation of the Court's order filed this application. It has been further highlighted in the application that the petitioners came to know that the respondent Council already issued 41 appointments out of that, 25 appointments have been issued from the panel in favour of those, who secured less marks in aggregate than other 26 candidates. Petitioners submitted that the respondent with a view of choose his own candidates surreptitiously prepared the panel followed by issuing appointments arbitrarily, intentionally and whimsically. They have quoted some marks said to have been secured by the petitioners vis-a-vis the other candidates, who were favoured with the order of appointments. ( 4 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION, was filed by the respondent contemnor. It has been, inter alia, admitted in his affidavit-in-opposition that the Division Bench directed the Council to issue appointment letters serially and strictly in terms of the panel. He has taken a stand that the panel was prepared in or about 1993, whereafter several letters of appointment were issued on circlewise. After the judgment of the Surpeme Court which directed to make the panel district-wise the whole panel was reshuffled and a district-wise panel was prepared from which the appointments were given. The writ petitioner having not obtained qualifying marks, i. e. , more than 38, thus, their name does not come serially. It has been denied that the panel was prepared erroneously and whimsically with an oblique motive to accommodate candidates outside the panel. ( 5 ) AFTER reshuffle of the name, the detailed panel was prepared indicating the names of the successful candidates serially by the respondent. ( 6 ) IT has been submitted that several appointments such as to Bandana Upadhaya and Jharna Modal were made under the direction of the Court and the xerox copy of the appointment letters are also annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. On careful perusal of this order, it appears that it did not suggest that the appointment shall be given in disregard to the merit list and it is explicitly clear that such order was passed on the basis of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent. Therefore, from such order, it cannot be assured that the Court has directed the authority to issue appointment letter to undeserving candidates even though they secured lower position than that of the petitioners. Therefore, from such order, it cannot be assured that the Court has directed the authority to issue appointment letter to undeserving candidates even though they secured lower position than that of the petitioners. ( 7 ) THE prime question that shall arise for consideration before the Court is whether, while considering the contempt matter, the whole merit list prepared by the District Primary School Council is required to be considered and if any appointment given in utter disregard to the marks secured by petitioners deserved to be cancelled. From time to time, District Primary School Council was directed for production of entire record pertaining to the preparation of panel. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Dipak Banerjee was asked to submit a report as regards to the defects detected from the record about the irregularities said to have been committed by the respondent. It has been submitted that several candidates those, who had secured B. Ed. degree have been awarded marks for such qualifications like serial No. 751, 752, 683, 686, 650, 676, 818, 821, 822, 824, 825, 840, 859 and 861 but petitioners 2, 8, 11 and 12 were not favoured with separate marks for B. Ed. degree. ( 8 ) THE petitioners further indicated several other lapses as regards the appointments given to the other candidates. The respondent, has, however, taken a point that the appointments were given prior to the order passed by the Division Bench as well as the Supreme Court, therefore, such appointment cannot and/or should not be directed to be reconsidered. We fail to appreciate the submission of the respondent inasmuch as had there been any such appointment prior to the order passed in 1993, the Council should have brought to the notice of the Court in its affidavit-in-opposition. It has been submitted that those, who had secured B. Ed. degree are only entitled to higher scale of pay but it shall not materially affect as regards their position in the merits list. We are also not in a position to agree with the contention of Mr. Chowdhury since had this been only the criterion, the petitioners, those who possessed B. Ed. degree should have been similarly treated like their other counter parts. Xerox copy of the panel prepared by the respondent was produced. It is noticed that there are some interpolation in the panel. Chowdhury since had this been only the criterion, the petitioners, those who possessed B. Ed. degree should have been similarly treated like their other counter parts. Xerox copy of the panel prepared by the respondent was produced. It is noticed that there are some interpolation in the panel. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent has significantly failed to satisfy us as to how such interpolation had occurred. ( 9 ) IN a public record prepared and maintained by statutory authority, it is not expected that there should be such interpolation inviting some amount of suspicion as regards its conduct. Therefore, in the above situation we are, however, unable to agree with the contention of the respondent that the appointment which were given after the order are valid. However, we are not in a position to specifically characterise as to which of the appointments those had been given subsequent to the order passed by the Division Bench and also passed on 9th April, 1997. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Director of School Education to carefully examine the merit list prepared by the District Primary School Council and issue appointment strictly on merits without any exception or deviation. ( 10 ) WE further make it clear that the appointees who have joined service by virtue of their appointments thereof, after the Division Bench order shall temporarily continue till the entire exercise is over. If in the revised Panel their position remains unaltered, they shall be deemed to be continuing in service. In case, their position goes below the petitioners, it is needless to mention that there shall have no right of employment. It is unfortunate to notice that the respondent, a responsible officer, who was the president of the District Primary School Council had acted in utter disregard to the Court's direction and given appointments haphazardly, we could have taken serious action against him but for his retirement in the meanwhile, we take a lenient view by only expressing our displeasure about his conduct in the matter. ( 11 ) THE respondent could have sought permission from the Court, had he had any doubt in mind as regards the panel. Without so doing, he in utter disregard to the Court's mandate had given appointment. Therefore, we hereby disapprove his action. ( 11 ) THE respondent could have sought permission from the Court, had he had any doubt in mind as regards the panel. Without so doing, he in utter disregard to the Court's mandate had given appointment. Therefore, we hereby disapprove his action. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we considered the case of both parties from every angle. We find that the Panel prepared by the District Primary School has been made in violation of the Court's order and therefore, the Director of School Education shall recast the Panel within a period of four months from the date and issue of direction to the President, District Primay School Council, Howrah to appoint the successful candidates from the panel strictly in accordance with the merit without any alteration. With the aforesaid direction Contempt Application is hereby disposed-of but there shall be no order as to cost. ( 13 ) SATYABRATA SINHA, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.