S. K. SEN, J. ( 1 ) ALL the writ petitions being C. O. 12178 (W)/95, C. O. 4949 (W)/95, C. O. 10038 (W)/95, C. O. 10920 (W)/95 and C. O. 13673 (W)/95 are heard together. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case as made out by the writ petitioners whose cases are heard analogously, inter alia as follows :-IN C. O. No. 12178 (W)/95, the petitioners Aloke Kumar Ghosal, Dipen Biswas and Subir Kumar Sinha are M. Com. and the petitioner Lolita Das is an M. A. in Bengali. The petitioner Lopamudra Roy is an M. A. in Geography and the petitioner Subhajit Bandyopadhyay is an M. Com. ( 3 ) THE names of all the petitioners were included in the panel prepared by College Service Commission. As far as the petitioner No. 1 Aloke Kumar Ghosal is concerned, his position in the panel for Commerce was prepared on or about 20th November, 1989 in 59 (a) in the Calcutta University after the interview on 20. 11. 89. The candidates in the panel upto serial No. 58 have already been appointed in different Colleges and only a few including the petitioner Aloke Kumar Ghosal is at the present moment only a part-time lecturer at Rishi Bankim Chandra College at Kantalpara, Naihati, 24-Parganas (N) since 28th November, 1985 and though he is nominally a part-time teacher but he is rendering service equal in intensity and labour, to service rendered by permanent teachers. The petitioner No. 1 has also been obliged to render part-time service in the evening classes also. At the present moment he is taking 15 classes per week in the Day Section as well as 6 classes in the Night Section. Before April 1995, the petitioner was taking per week 18 classes in the Day Section and before 1st March, 1995 he was taking 12 classes in the Night Section. He is only getting Rs. 925/- per month comprising Rs. 800/- for the Day Section and Rs. 125/- for the Night Section. ( 4 ) ON 21st June, 1995 the Teacher-in-Charge of Rishi Bankim Chandra College gave a certificate that the petitioner Aloke Kumar Ghosal has been rendering his flawless, continuous and satisfactory services as a lecturer (part-time) on Accountancy, Business Mathematics and Statistics and Audit in the Commerce Section of the College from 23rd September, 1988. 125/- for the Night Section. ( 4 ) ON 21st June, 1995 the Teacher-in-Charge of Rishi Bankim Chandra College gave a certificate that the petitioner Aloke Kumar Ghosal has been rendering his flawless, continuous and satisfactory services as a lecturer (part-time) on Accountancy, Business Mathematics and Statistics and Audit in the Commerce Section of the College from 23rd September, 1988. Xerox copy of the said certificate has been annexed to the writ petition. ( 5 ) ON 23rd September 1988 being a part-time teacher the petitioner No. 1 [in C. O. 12178 (W)/95] tenure of service is for a limited period of 3 months/6 months at a time and his temporary service as teacher is being continually extended. Xerox copies of some of the extension letter have been annexed with the petition. ( 6 ) THE petitioner No. 1 has also been appointed as Examiner and Scrutineer by the University of Calcutta for examining B. Com (Part-I) Paper. Xerox copies of the letters of the Controller of Examination and Scrutineer are also annexed to the petition. ( 7 ) THE petitioner No. 2 Sm. Lolita Das has been given a certificate by Women Christian College on 28th December, 1994 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner No. 2 was in their employment from 4th July, 1994 to 31st December, 1994 in the temporary post of part time Lecturer in the Department of Bengali. Xerox copy of the certificate has been annexed to the petition. She was appointed on a purely temporary basis as a teacher in Bengali w. e. f. 4th July, 1994 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 300/- only. Xerox copy of the letter appointing her as a temporary teacher has been annexed to the petition. The petitioner No. 2 is now out of employment. ( 8 ) THE petitioner No. 2 appeared before the West Bengal College Service Commission on 26th September, 1988 and was empanelled on 14th August, 1992 as Bengali Teacher. The petitioner's panel position was 80 in Burdwan University and the petitioner's submission is that there are vacancies in the posts of teachers numbering about 900 in different subjects as reported by the media and the existing panel should be implemented. The petitioner's panel position was 80 in Burdwan University and the petitioner's submission is that there are vacancies in the posts of teachers numbering about 900 in different subjects as reported by the media and the existing panel should be implemented. ( 9 ) THE petitioner No. 3 Subir Kumar Sinha was empanelled in the panel for Commerce in June 1990 after interview on 12th December, 1989 and his position in the panel was 70 (B) for Calcutta University, 40 for Burdwan University, 31 for North Bengal University, 26 for Vidyasagar University and 39 for Kalyani University. The petitioner submitted that the panel should be implemented and the petitioner No. 3 should be absorbed as Commerce Teacher in one of the Colleges in one of the aforesaid Universities. The petitioner No. 3 has been working as a part-time lecturer in Anandamohan Jaipuria College since September, 1987. ( 10 ) THE Petitioner No. 4 Dipen Kumar Biswas was interviewed for Commerce on 19th January, 1990 and empanelled in June, 1990 and his panel position is 58 (B) in Calcutta University, 27 in North Bengal University and 47 (B) in Burdwan University. The petitioner No. 4 is now obliged to work as a part-time teacher with back breaking labour on meagre salary from September, 1987 in Barasat Evening College. The petitioner No. 4 has also submitted that he could have been absorbed as a teacher in one of the aforesaid Universities if the panel had been worked for a few months. The petitioner No. 4 has also submitted that there is no reason why the panel should not be implemented. His panel position is 58 (B)in Calcutta University. ( 11 ) THE petitioner No. 4 has submitted that being empanelled long before the present regulation of West Bengal College Service Commission the present regulation, providing that in order to be a College Teacher a candidate must obtain not less than 55% marks in his M. A. Examination and further providing that such a candidate has also to pass State Level Eligibility test or National Eligiblity test, should not apply to them and a right has accrued to the petitioners, of which they cannot be deprived. ( 12 ) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner No. 4 that the panel that have been prepared in the years 1987 to 1990 before the present Regulations should be implemented until all the persons in the panel get appointment. ( 13 ) THE petitioner No. 5 Lopamudra Roy is an M. A. in Geography and was empanelled in June 1990 in Georgraphy (Genl.) as well as in Geography (Teachers Training ). Her panel position is 36 in Calcutta University, 34 in North Bengal University, 25 in Vidyasagar University for Geography (Genl. ). Her panel position is within 7 in Calcutta University, Burdwan University, Vidyasagar University. North Bengal University for Geography (Teachers Training), She is a part-time-lecturer in Geography in Rishi Bankim Chandra College at Naihati, 24-Parganas (N) since April, 1985. She was taking 12 classes per week as on 31st March, 1995, on or after 1. 4. 95, she takes 12 classes per week. ( 14 ) THE petitioner No. 6 Subhojit Bandyopadhyay is an M. Com. and a Part-time lecturer in Rishi Bankim College, Naihati where he joined on 26th November, 1986 taking 18 classes per week as on 31st March, 1995. On or after 1. 4. 95 he took 12 classes per week, and as a Visiting Lecturer in B. P. C. Institute of Technology taking 9 classes per week. His panel position in the panel prepared in 1990 by the West Bengal College Service Commission is 70 in Calcutta University and 38 in Burdwan University. ( 15 ) IN C. O. No. 4949 (W)/95 Nidham Mondal, petitioner was appointed on 2. 5. 87 as temporary Part-time lecturer in Philosophy in Jatinder Rajandra Mahavidhalaya, Amtala, Murshidabad, West Bengal. He was empanelled in the year 1988-89. ( 16 ) IN C. O. 10038 (W)/95 Anuradha Mitra (Ghosh), petitioner was appointed on 1. 4. 87 as temporary Part-time lecturer in Bengali in Vevekanda Mahavidhayalaya, Haripal, Hooghly, West Bengal after having been empanelled in the year 1986-87 and 1988-89 by the College Service Commission. ( 17 ) IN C. O. 10920 (W)/95 Binapani Bhattacharyya, petitioner was appointed as temporary Part-time lecturer in Philosophy in Rampurhat College, P. O. Rampurhat, District Birbhum West Bengal. She was empanelled in the year 1988-89 by the College Service Commission. ( 18 ) THE writ petitioner Dr. ( 17 ) IN C. O. 10920 (W)/95 Binapani Bhattacharyya, petitioner was appointed as temporary Part-time lecturer in Philosophy in Rampurhat College, P. O. Rampurhat, District Birbhum West Bengal. She was empanelled in the year 1988-89 by the College Service Commission. ( 18 ) THE writ petitioner Dr. Tapan Kumar Mukhopadhyay in C. O. No. 13673 (W) of 1995 is an M. Sc. (Physics) of the University of Calcutta. He obtained Ph. D from the Jadavpur University and was awarded Junior Research Fellowship of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research in 1985. He is in the employ of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur and holding the post of Research Associate of C. S. I. R. He was empanelled for Lecturership after interview in the year 1990 for College under all Universities of West Bengal. The petitioner also filed a Case being No. C. O. 15764 (W) of 1993 in which the learned Judge on 3. 5. 1995 passed an order restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the panel, if any, prepared until further orders of the Court. ( 19 ) ALL the writ petitioner at the time of their appointment had the requisite qualifications as required by law. In fact, Anuradha Mitra (Ghosh) petitioner in C. O. No. 10038 (W)/95 was an empanelled candidate even at the point of appointment. ( 20 ) AFTER the enactment of West Bengal College Service Commission Act, appointment of College teachers on a permanent basis in all Colleges and in all Universities in West Bengal is made on the recommendation of West Bengal College Service Commission and this system of appointing teachers has been in vogue for several decades. ( 21 ) ON 21st February, 1988 and thereafter on 21st March, 1988 the West Bengal College Service Commission issued advertisement inviting applications from candidates for posts of teachers and it was pointed out that for every subject a panel would be prepared for all Colleges under the different Universities in West Bengal containing names of selected teachers. It was also pointed out in that advertisement that those who had made applications pursuant to the earlier advertisements, namely 2/86, 1/87, 2/87 could, if they wished, make applications according to the present advertisement of 21st March, 1988. It was also pointed out in that advertisement that those who had made applications pursuant to the earlier advertisements, namely 2/86, 1/87, 2/87 could, if they wished, make applications according to the present advertisement of 21st March, 1988. As to qualifications, it was said that they had been itemised and prescribed in the information leaflet, inter alia, any person who was an Honours Graduate and who has passed M. A. Examination in the subject in which he wanted to be empanelled and with a percentage of marks 50 or above exceeding 50, could apply and, in order to be finally selected, they should appear for an interview. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioners applied to be empanelled as teachers and after having qualified at the interview, were empanelled and their respective panel positions have already been indicated above. ( 23 ) AFTER the petitioners appeared at the interview the petitioners became empanelled and, though the panel has subsisted for the last 7 years or more, the panels have not yet been exhausted and the petitioners are some of the only few persons in the panel who are yet to be appointed as teachers. ( 24 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that there is no reason why the petitioners who are only few in the panels cannot be appointed as substantive teachers of the Colleges. It has been reported in Ananda Bazar Patrika on 7th May, 1985 that about 900 posts of teachers in different Colleges are vacant. As early as 7th September, 1994 Prof. Nityanand Saha who was the Chairman of the West Bengal College Service Commission declared that the existing panels would remain operative and teachers in colleges would be appointed. ( 25 ) THE petitioners have referred to another advertisement being advertisement No. 2/95 which was issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission and had announced that fresh panels would be formed for different subjects for appointment of teachers in different Colleges in different Universities and those persons would only be considered for appointments who have got a consistently good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the degree level and at least a Second class 3 Year Honours Degree in the relevant subject. It has been further stipulated that the applicant for posts of College Teachers should also pass a written test which is called State Level Eligibility Tests (SLET) conducted by the West Bengal College Service Commission or National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by UGC/csir. ( 26 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that they have earned valuable right by being empanelled and they cannot be deprived of that valuable right. ( 27 ) ON 28th October, 1991 the University Grants Commission issued an order under Memo No. 1-11/87 (CPP/ps) under which a candidate is eligible for appointment to the post of lecturer in the Colleges of the Universities only if (a) he possessed a good academic record at least 55% marks or an equivalent rate at Master's Degree levels in the relevant subjects and (b) he should have cleared the eligibility test for lecturership conducted by UGC/csir or a similar test accredited by the UGC. ( 28 ) THE said order of UGC cannot also have any retrospective operation and those who became empanelled prior to the promulgation of such Regulations should not be or cannot be affected by such Regulation or Instruction or Direction. Nor can any regulation or order or instruction issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission have any retrospective effect. ( 29 ) IT is the apprehension of the petitioners that on the basis of the said advertisements, appointment would be effected which would cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. In terms of the said advertisement dated 14. 7. 95 issued by the West Bengal College Service Commission, only those candidates are being interviewed who have earned not less than 55% marks in M. A. Examination in the concerned subject. It is also necessary to pass either SLET or NET Examination. The contention of the petitioners is that the said procedure prescribed in the advertisement providing for qualification for interview causes serious hardship to the petitioners. ( 30 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has submitted that the Act came into force on 23. 2. ( 30 ) MR. Arun Prakash Chatterjee learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred to the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has submitted that the Act came into force on 23. 2. 79 and the West Bengal College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission) was constituted for the purpose of selecting persons for appointment to the post of teachers of a College as per provisions contained in section 7 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act makes it obligatory that appointments to the post of teacher of a College shall be made on the recommendation of the Commission and section 8 provides that the manner of selection shall be such as may be provided for by regulations which have been referred by Mr. Chatterjee. Section 17 of the said Act has also been referred to by him which provides that power to make regulation is entrusted to the Commission subject to the previous approval of the Government. Reference has also been made by Mr. Chatterjee to section 16 of the Act which authorises the State Government to make rules. ( 31 ) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the manner of selection of teachers is laid down in paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8, and 9 of the Regulations. Paragraph 8 (3) of the Regulations has been referred by Mr. Chatterjee which provides that the panel prepared by the Commission shall remain valid for one year from the date of its finalisation by the Commission. ( 32 ) FURTHER contention of Mr. Chatterjee is that the panel of 1990 in which the petitioners' names appeard was prepared pursuant to three successive advertisements in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and although it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the validity period of the panel was for one year only, the duration of the panel was allowed to continue and the life of the panel was extended which has been urged by the respondent. However, the term of the panel was not allowed to lapse and never before the Commission insisted that the validity of a panel would subsist only for one year. According to Mr. However, the term of the panel was not allowed to lapse and never before the Commission insisted that the validity of a panel would subsist only for one year. According to Mr. Chatterjee the Commission recommended the names of Rajendra Bandopadhyay and Bhaskar Purakayastha for appointment as teachers in City College from the panel of 1990 and the contention of the respondent that no recommendation has been made from the panel of 1990 after 31. 1. 95 therefore, is not correct. ( 33 ) IN the affidavit affirmed by the petitioners No. 1 Aloke Kumar Ghosal it has been shown that once Mr. Snehamoy Bhattacharyya was appointed as teacher of Accountancy in Rishi Bankim Chandra College, Naihati on 18. 2. 89 out of the panel which was prepared as early as 1985 and other teachers were also appointed in different Colleges out of panel of 1985 even though one year period had elapsed. ( 34 ) IT has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that appointments have been made also from the panel of 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and January, 1995 and such appointments have been made superseding the name of the petitioners. It has also been urged by Mr. Chatterjee that the conduct of the Commission shows that Regulation 8 (3) was never given effect to by the Commission in respect of the validity of the period of a panel and the Commission always relaxed Regulation 8 (3 ). He has also sought to distinguish their decisions of primary teachers case that rule regarding validity of the panel is obligatory and cannot be relaxed. ( 35 ) MR. Chatterjee has submitted that in the said decision, the rule was made by the State Government obviously, the District School Board of the Primary Teachers' Council would not ignore the said rules. ( 36 ) IN the instant case, the period of validity of panel has been fixed by Regulation made by the Commission and the Commission itself relaxed the said Regulations in serveral cases with regard to the validity period, and as such the decision in Primary Teacher's case, according to Mr. Chatterjee, cannot apply. ( 37 ) MR. Chatterjee has also tried to distinguish the judgment and decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Manoranjan Mondal and Ors. Chatterjee, cannot apply. ( 37 ) MR. Chatterjee has also tried to distinguish the judgment and decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Manoranjan Mondal and Ors. reported in (1996) 1 CLJ 425 wherein it was held that when validity period of a panel is fixed, no appointment can be given on the basis of that panel when that panel expires. But this observation would obviouly apply only when the panel is made for appointment. In the instant case, the panel is made for recommendation for appointment. ( 38 ) IT has further been submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that the Regulation 8 (3) is merely directory and not mandatory and the Commission has proceeded on that basis since its Constitution in 1979. ( 39 ) THE contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the petitioners should not be deprived, in the instant case, of their right of recommendation by the Commission on the ground that the panel in which their names appeared has expired, according to him, is untenable. ( 40 ) IT has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that from the facts and circumstance indicated above, it is clear that the conduct and action of the College Service Commission shows and demonstrate that a panel of 1990 was not meant to be a panel to be valid for only one year. Moreover, Regulation 3 provides that the panel prepared by the Commission shall be for vacancies available or expected between 1st May of the Current year and 30th April of the following year. The panel prepared pursuant to the last Advertisement No. 2/95 has been published in August/september, 1996 though not in all streams and must be deemed to be made for vacancies available and/or expected for the period from 1st May, 1996 to 30th April, 1997 and therefore all the vacancies till the 30th April, 1997 should be filled on recommendation by the Service Commission from the panel of 1990. In fact, vacancies till 30th April 1990 were all filled on recommendation by the Commission from the panel of 1985. ( 41 ) UNDER Advertisement No. 2/95 the UGC directive of minimum 55% in M. A. and passing the SLET test or NET test is obligatory. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the UGC Circular provides that the Circular would not apply to those who have been empanelled before September, 1991. ( 41 ) UNDER Advertisement No. 2/95 the UGC directive of minimum 55% in M. A. and passing the SLET test or NET test is obligatory. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the UGC Circular provides that the Circular would not apply to those who have been empanelled before September, 1991. Since the petitioner No. 1 secured first class marks in his Master's Degree level and the petitioner No. 5 secured 50% marks in her Master's Degree level and they were empanelled prior to September 1991, they are not required to appear at the SLET test or NET test under the UGC Circular. ( 42 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents that vacancies have all been filled up and as such empanelled candidates of 1990 panel cannot have any claim for recommendation for appointment. It however appears that Advertisement No. 2/95 was issued inviting applications for filling up vacancies for the post of teachers. In fact, the petitioners have stated in their writ petition that there are about 900 vacancies as on the date on which the petition was affirmed. ( 43 ) THE further contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the existing panel of 1990 should be exhausted first by filling up vacancies from the said panel and thereafter fresh panel should be prepared. The petitioners have also referred to another matter being FMAT 3137 of 1995 (Chairman, West Bengal College Service Commission v. Nidhan Mondal and Ors.) wherein it was submitted by the learned Advocate for the commission that "several posts are lying vacant" vide paragraph 5 of the Order of the Appeal Court dated 22. 12. 95 whereupon the Appeal Court granted leave to the Commission to proceed to prepare a fresh panel in accordance with law and directed the Commission "to see that two posts in Bengali, one post in Geography, four posts in Commerce and two posts in Philosophy are not filled up permanently" so that the petitioners in the present writ petition being C. O. No. 12178 (W) of 1995 may be accommodated if the writ petition succeeds. ( 44 ) THE petitioners have also made out a case that there has been malafide discrimination against the petitioners. ( 44 ) THE petitioners have also made out a case that there has been malafide discrimination against the petitioners. It has been submitted for the petitioners that according to Regulation 7 and 8 (1) a panel of candidates for appointment as teachers is prepared strictly in order of merit after selection and obviously recommendations also must be made accordingly in order of merit. But, as stated by the petitioners in the Affidavit-of-Facts dated 3. 6. 96 the petitioners namely, Aloke Kumar Ghosal, (Serial No. 59a), Subir Sinha (Serial No. 70b), Dwipen Biswas (Serial No. 58b) and Subhajit Banerjee, (Serial No. 70c) have been superseded. They all belong to the Commerce Panel of Calcutta University and they have been superseded by-1. ANUREKHA Nath (Serial No. 59e)2. Gourhari Manna (Serial No. 59d)3. Kanika Mukherjee (Serial No. 61)4. Ratna Mallick (Serial No. 62a)5. Jayanta Nath Kundu (Serial No. 70d)6. Ranjana Roy (Serial No. 70e)7. Rajendra Bandopadhyay (Serial No. 59b) ( 45 ) MUKUL Saha (Serial No. 58a) had already been recommended by the Commission. ( 46 ) SEVERAL other instances of discrimination have been pointed out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit affirmed on 15. 4. 96 by the petitioners. ( 47 ) IT has been contended that there has been serious discrimination against the petitioners since appointments have been given to many on empanelled candidates even though the period of one year from the date of preparation of the panel expired, the petitioners are being denied employment and/or recommendation by the Commission on the alleged ground that the panel of 1990, in which their names occur has crossed the period of one year. ( 48 ) THE petitioners have also been serving or served for a large number of years as part-time College teachers in different Colleges and their load of work have been very heavy, in any event, more than 12 periods of classes per week. ( 49 ) REFERENCE has been made on behalf of the petitioners to the Circular 1443-Edn (CS) dated 2. 12. 89. Clause (iv) of that Circular provides :-"the graded scale of Rs. 500-20-540-25-640-80-820-40-1260-1360 shall be admissible to them (part-time teachers) with effect from the date from which they have been taking additional classes to make up a total of more than twelve periods of classes per week. 12. 89. Clause (iv) of that Circular provides :-"the graded scale of Rs. 500-20-540-25-640-80-820-40-1260-1360 shall be admissible to them (part-time teachers) with effect from the date from which they have been taking additional classes to make up a total of more than twelve periods of classes per week. " ( 50 ) PETITIONERS have also referred to judgment and order of N. K. Mitra, J. dated 24. 1. 95 in case No. Co. 18701 (w) of 1992 wherein the learned Judge held that the persons who are part-time teachers and are putting in hand labour as teachers taking a large number of classes per week should be absorbed without any delay. The learned Judge quoted the observations of the Supreme Court in this respect in Jacob K. Puthuparambil and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 at 2238 para 18; in Karnataka State Private College Stop-gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 667. ( 51 ) IT has been also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents are bound by the principles of Promissory Estoppel to give appointment to the petitioners. By empanelling the petitioners in the panel of 1990, the respondents held out a promise to them that they would be recommended for appointment. The petitioners have been waiting in the panel and appointments have been given to others from the said panel irrespective of alleged one year validity of the panel. If the petitioners were told or informed earlier that their position in the panel would not ensure recommendation for appointment, then the petitioners could have opted out for other avenues in life. ( 52 ) CASE of legitimate expectation has also been made out in behalf of the petitioners and it has been submitted that empanelment in the panel gave rise to a legitimate expectation and on that basis they were led to believe that appointment should be forthcoming and, therefore, they did not opt out for other avenues of life. In this connection, the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions: (A) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 SC 2414 ; (b) Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. In this connection, the petitioners have relied upon the following decisions: (A) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 SC 2414 ; (b) Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 872 ; (c) Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Products reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 . ( 53 ) IN the other writ petitions herein the writ petitioners after having been appointed in the post of part time lecturers in their respective Colleges and subjects, duly appeared before the College Service Commission and having been found fit were placed in the panel from which names of the candidates were to be sponsored for the purpose of appointment as permanent lecturers. ( 54 ) THE appropriate College authorities have all along been representing before the College Service Commission need for whole time lecturers. Further the names of the writ petitioners have been recommended for regularisation/absorption. These are annexed to annexure to the writ petition. ( 55 ) THE Commission while issuing the information leaflet for candidates applying for the post of lecturer deleted clause 11 and 12 which reads as under :-CLAUSE 11 : The panel/panels made by the Commission will remain valid for a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the same. CLAUSE 12 : Candidates recommended against permanent as well as temporary vacancies (F. I :p) study leave etc. must accept the offer otherwise their names will be struck off from the panels. The candidates serving as lecturer in temporary vacancies or the recommendation of the Commission will be offered permanent posts as soon as possible, subject to availability of vacancies. Further, the Commission never at any stage declare the number of vacancies against which panel is drawn up and/or the validity period of the panel, in light of having cancelled clause 11 and 12 above. ( 56 ) THE process of appointing full time lecturers in sponsored Colleges, West Bengal from the panel drawn up pursuant to the interview held in 1988, continued upto December 1994. ( 57 ) ALL on a sudden, without any prior official announcement/ decision and/or declaration to the extent the Commission decided to draw up a fresh panel in October, 1994 and proceeded to appointment full time lecturers in sponsored Colleges, West Bengal from the new panel. ( 57 ) ALL on a sudden, without any prior official announcement/ decision and/or declaration to the extent the Commission decided to draw up a fresh panel in October, 1994 and proceeded to appointment full time lecturers in sponsored Colleges, West Bengal from the new panel. ( 58 ) THE writ proceedings have been initiated (i) challenging the arbitrary, whimsical cancellation of the panel drawn up in 1988-89: (ii) Non-regularisation of the services of the writ petitioners working on a pittance on the basis of a hope/promise for regulation, for the past 5 years and more in sponsored Colleges, officially rendering part time services, but in effect carrying out same and similar duties as those denigraded to permanent lecturers in the respective Colleges. ( 59 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners who were appointed on a part time temporary basis, having all requisite qualifications for being eligible to the permanent post of lecturer appointment, appeared before the College Service Commission and were successful and there names were empanelled for the purpose of being considered for appointment in full time permanent services in Colleges against vacancies as and when the same would arise during life time of panel. (Clause 3 and Clause 4 of Regulation No. 1 which provides that the Commission shall every year ascertain number of vacancies and sponsor names from the panel drawn up in accordance with law ). The Colleges in which the writ petitioners working are complying with Commissioner's rules and already applied for filling up vacant permanent post which are now managed through part time lecturers with nominal remuneration. Names of the petitioners were also sponsored by the respective Colleges for appointment against permanent posts. Writ petitioners are working under bonafide belief that the conduct of the Commission in extending life of panel every year is a clear and unequivocal promise, creating legal relations which will be given effect to in the future. Silence on the part of the Commission to the repeated representations made by the writ petitioners and Colleges sponsoring their names proves that Commission is in seisin of its actions and its effects, intends to create the legal relation and give effect to the same in the future. Plea of mere executive necessity cannot be held to categorically negate the justice in equity. Plea of mere executive necessity cannot be held to categorically negate the justice in equity. ( 60 ) IN this connection, learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions :- (I) M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , reported in AIR 1971 SC 621; (II) Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Karnataka Electricity Board and Ors. , reported in air 1992 SC 2169 . ( 61 ) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that they have been working continuously for 5 years or more, in respective temporary part time posts against permanent vacancies, to be filled up as per statute, through candidates sponsored by the Commission, from amongst the panel prepared in 1988-89, petitioners appeared before the Commission and were found eligible for empanelment in 1988-89. Panel has not be exhausted. On the contrary, the same was extended year by year uptil 94-95. Validity period of the panel was never declared. Number of vacancies also were never declared. Representations made in this regard were never replied to. (I) While circulating the information leaflet for candidates applying for the post of lecturers, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission deletes Clauses 11 and 12 of the prescribed rules relating to validity period of the panel. (II) Subsequent extension of the life of the panel from 1988-89 or 1994-95 unconditionally places stamp of sanguinity to the above cancellation. (III) Executive authority cannot be allowed to dilly dally with the life and right of livelihood and right to earn a living of a citizen under the garb of administrative decision, Executive exigencies, statutory limitations, when these limitations have been used as putty and/or a band of elastic. ( 62 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners has referred to sections 7, 8 and 17 of the Commission Act. section 7 imposes duty of the Commission to select persons for appointment in the post of teacher of a College as per regulation. ( 63 ) SECTION 8 provides the manner of selection for appointment in the post of teacher of a College. ( 64 ) SECTION 17 provides that Commission is empowered to make regulation with approval of the State Government. ( 63 ) SECTION 8 provides the manner of selection for appointment in the post of teacher of a College. ( 64 ) SECTION 17 provides that Commission is empowered to make regulation with approval of the State Government. ( 65 ) IT has been submitted that Clause of the Regulation 1 provides that every calendar year i. e. 1st April to 31st March the Commission shall ascertain from Colleges number of vacancies in approved posts that are then available or are expected to be available for appointment between 1st May to 30th April of the following year. ( 66 ) CLAUSE 4 of the Regulation 1 provides that for the purpose of selecting persons for appointment to the post of teachers Commission shall advertise number of vacancies in such post and prepare a panel. ( 67 ) ON plain reading of Clauses 3 and 4 of the said Regulation-1, it is abundantly clear :- (I) Every year, number of vacancies are ascertained. (ii) Posts are filled up from existing panel and/or fresh panel created after vacancy for following year i. e. May to April has been ascertained. ( 68 ) IT has accordingly been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Commission can take no steps to fill up vacancies from the panel drawn up in October/november, 1995 except that vacancies arising on and from May, 1995 to April, 1996, or such date as the said panel is declared closed. It can, therefore be concluded that all vacancies falling vacant on or before 30th April, 1995 have to be filled up from the existing vacancies as on that date, and not to a future panel, to be drawn up after 30th April, 1995. ( 69 ) IT is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that nowhere neither in the affidavit-in-opposition not in stay application before the Appeal Court, has the Commission placed a single scrap of paper to prove that (A) the number of vacancies for which 1995 panel has been drawn up; (b) all vacancies arising on or before 30th April, 1995 have been filled up from the existing panel as per statutory rules; (c) the panel 1988-89 was never given effect to after a year from date of completion of the same. ( 70 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that until the panel is exhausted, the life of the panel or validity of the panel automatically stands extended on year to year basis. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that life of panel is extended for a period of 12 months with effect from 1st April to 31st March every year w. e. f. 1988-89, to fill up all vacancies (arising on or before drawing up new panel in 1994) i. e. vacancies arising before the 30th April, 1995. ( 71 ) IT has been argued that since the Commission has made out a case that more than 500 vacancies existed, the Commission is legally, morally, principally and also statutorily bound to declare the number of vacancies existing prior to 30th April, 1995 and fill the same from existing panel with effect from 1988-89 to 1994-95. ( 72 ) IN this connection judgment and decision in the case of Sankarasan Darh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 has been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. ( 73 ) MRS. Chama Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners has also argued that the State cannot act arbitrarily in any manner whatsoever in the matter of employment. In this connection, she has relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Secretariat Assistants S. E. Union 1986, and Ors. , reported in AIR 1994 SC 736 . It has been submitted that the Commission cannot grant appointment to some candidates and deny to others appointment which is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. ( 74 ) MRS. Mukherjee has further submitted that right to be selected crystalizes only after interview. Judgment and decision in the case of P. K. Jaiswal v. Debi Mukherjee, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 148 has been relied upon by Mrs. Mukherjee. ( 75 ) IT has also been argued that the petitioners have been working continuously for more than 5 years having all requisite qualifications. They have been empanelled under the statute for selection after appointment on temporary part time post. It has been submitted that in effect they have been carrying out equal and similar nature of work and their working hours as the same as allotted to permanent lecturers. They have been empanelled under the statute for selection after appointment on temporary part time post. It has been submitted that in effect they have been carrying out equal and similar nature of work and their working hours as the same as allotted to permanent lecturers. ( 76 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that since the petitioners have been rendering service for long years, they should be regularised and the State cannot remain a passive spectator. In support of his contention following decisions are cited :- (A) Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 ; (b) All Manipur Regular Post vacancies Substitute Teachers Association v. State of Manipur reported in AIR 1991 SC 2088 ; (c) Karnataka State Pvt. College Stop Gap Lecturers' Association v. State of Karnataka reported in (1992) 2 SCC 29 ; (d) State of Haryana v. Piara Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 ; (e) Dr. Arundhati A. Paragaonkar v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 . ( 77 ) NITISH Chandra Gangully, Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission in the case C. O. 12178 (W)/95 affirmed an affidavit on behalf of the Commission on 22. 11. 95 which has been treated as affidavit-in-opposition in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to the said affidavit ). In para 9 of the said affidavit it has been specifically alleged inter alia as under:"i state that University Grants Commission has recommended that to be a lecturer in a College a candidate must obtain minimum 55% marks in Master's Degree and he must pass State Level Eligibility Test or National Eligibility Test. I state that State Government on the basis of recommendation of the University Grants Commission has also ordered that minimum 55% marks in Master's Degree is required for candidate to be appointed in a College in West Bengal. I deny that the panels that have been prepared in the year 1987 to 1990 before the present qualification should be implemented until all the persons in the panel get appointment as alleged or at all. I state that about 4 to 5 years would be required if all the candidates empanelled in the year 1987-1990 are to be recommended and as such submissions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. I state that about 4 to 5 years would be required if all the candidates empanelled in the year 1987-1990 are to be recommended and as such submissions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. I state that from the year 1987 many brilliant students who have passed either in 1st class or in high 2nd Class in different subject in M. A. M. Sc. or M. Com. under different Universities are waiting eagerly to get a chance for empanelment for the last several years. If the panel where the names of the petitioners are appearing are to be kept alive for an indefinite period, other brilliant students who have passed their Masters Degree either in 1st class or in high 2nd class after the years from 1987 to 1990 will not get their chance to be a lecturer in a College in West Bengal. I crave leave to refer to the Government orders regarding fixing of minimum educational qualifications for the post of lecturer of a College fixing the educational qualifications of lecturers in Colleges at the time of hearing, if necessary. " ( 78 ) IT has been admitted in the said affidavit in para 13 that the petitioners, pursuant to advertisement for empanelment of names for the post of lecturers in different subjects, applied since they had the requisite qualifications as prescribed by the State Government in the year 1988 and they rushed to appear before the said Commission. The petitioners duly appeared before the interview Board/selection Committee constituted by the Commission along with other candidates. The Interview Board granted marks for qualifications, experience and performance in the interview to all the candidates including the petitioners, merit panel of different subjects were determined. It has also been stated in para 13 of the affidavit inter alia as follows :-"i state that the panel prepared by the said Commission could not remain for an indefinite period and that the life of the panels where the names of the petitioners were appearing along with other candidates were not extended beyond 31st January 1995 by the said Commission. The said Commission waited upto 31st January, 1995 from the year, 1990 when the panels on the basis of Advertisement No. 1/88 were prepared, to recommend the names of the candidate from the panel according to available vacancies, it was not possible to surmise how many more years to take to complete the said panel. Moreover, according to Regulation 1 framed by the said Commission, panel prepared by the Commission cannot remain valid for an indefinite period. From the year, 1987 till the year 1995 many brilliant students who has passed M. A. , M. Sc. or M. Com. is getting more than 55% marks in their post Graduate Examination were waiting to get a chance of being empanelled for getting appointment as lecturer in different Colleges. The life of the panel where the names of the petitioners were appearing was not extended beyond 31st January. 1995. Moreover, mere empanelment of the names of the candidate does not give any guarantee for their recommendation and/or appointment. I state that as the panels where the names of the petitioners were appearing are no longer in existence and the petitioners along with many other candidates cannot be recommended for appointment in Colleges. " ( 79 ) IT is, therefore, admitted position that the petitioners were empanelled being duly qualified in the said 1990 panel. It is also not in dispute that the panel was kept alive upto 1995. ( 80 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the Commission that UGC had directed to all State Government to take State Level Eligibility Test of the candidates desirous to be appointed for the post of lecturers in Colleges. It has also been pointed out that on the basis of the direction of UGC, the West Bengal College Service Commission took the State Level Eligibility Test of the candidates in the month of November, 1994 but the petitioners did not sit in the said Test and as such the names of the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment in the post of lecturer in any College. As the petitioners did not possess the minimum qualifications of 55% marks in Master's Degree level they could not appear in the said Test according to the respondent Commission. On the basis of the educational qualifications prescribed by UGC for the post of lecturers in Colleges, Advertisement No. 2/95 was published on 28. 5. As the petitioners did not possess the minimum qualifications of 55% marks in Master's Degree level they could not appear in the said Test according to the respondent Commission. On the basis of the educational qualifications prescribed by UGC for the post of lecturers in Colleges, Advertisement No. 2/95 was published on 28. 5. 95 and on the basis of the said Advertisement 5,000 eligible applications have been received in different subjects by different candidates who are successful either in State level Eligibility Test on 1994 or who have obtained Ph. D. and M. Phil. It has also been contended that the petitioners who do not possess the minimum qualifications for the post of lecturers in Colleges did not apply on the basis of the Advertisement No. 2/95 and as such the question of getting any recommendation of the said Commission does not and cannot arise at all. Many candidates whose name were appearing in the previous panel according to respondent, have again applied for empanelment in the instant panel and got empanelled but the petitioners' names have not been empanelled since they did not apply. ( 81 ) IT is the contention of the respondent that unless empanelled there is no scope for getting appointment as lecturer. It is the specific contention of the Commission that the panel where the names of the petitioners were appearing could not remain in force for an indefinite period on the basis of the provisions of the West Bengal Colleges Service Commission Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. ( 82 ) AN affidavit has been affirmed in C. O. 12178 (W)/95 by the petitioner No. 1 on 3. 6. 96 stated to be affidavit of facts. In the said affidavit of facts names of persons whose names were recommended by College Service Commission for appointment in different Colleges or Universities superseding the claim of the petitioners have been mentioned. In this connection paragraph 2 of the said affidavit of facts is set out hereinbelow :-THE following persons whose names appeared at the noted serials in the subjectwise panel of Commerce prepared in 1990 were recommended by College Service Commission for appointment in different Colleges or Universities superseding the petitioner No. 1 (Sl. No. 59a), the petitioner No. 4 (Sl. No. 58b), the petitioner No. 3 (Sl. No. . 70b) and the petitioner No. 6 (Sl. No. 70) : commercial Panel : sl. No. 59a), the petitioner No. 4 (Sl. No. 58b), the petitioner No. 3 (Sl. No. . 70b) and the petitioner No. 6 (Sl. No. 70) : commercial Panel : sl. No. Name 59 (E)anurekha Nath 59 (D)gourhari Manna 61 kanika Mukherjee 69 (A)smt. Ratna Mallick 58 (A)mukul Saha 70 (D)jayanta Nath Kundu 70 (E)ranjana Roy 59 (B)rajendra Bandopadhay the persons aforesaid have been given appointment on those recommendations. ( 83 ) ANOTHER affidavit was affirmed by the petitioner No. 1 on 15. 4. 96 stated to be supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the said supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have challenged the Advertisement dated 28. 5. 95 appearing in different newspapers for formation of a panel of teachers for eventual appointment in different Colleges as and when required by different College authorities. It has been alleged in the supplementary affidavit that the Advertisement is defective on the ground that it does not indicate the vacancies in the post of teachers as directed to be ascertained by the College Service Commission from Colleges in terms of paragraph 3 of the Regulations frame under section 17 of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978. It was also alleged in the supplementally affidavit that although it was urged on behalf of the respondent, Commission, that the Commission never knew that the petitioners or any of the petitioner was functioning as part-time teachers in different Colleges, the petitioners in order to prove their qualifications and experience according to Regulation 7 on the basis of which panel has to be prepared, submitted experience certificates from Colleges where the petitioners have been serving on part-time basis. The petitioners in the supplementary affidavit called upon the respondent to produce the said certificates. It has also been submitted that appointments on the panel prepared in 1990 pursuant to the Advertisement in 1986, 1987 and 1988 were not made serially but in a haphazard and arbitrary fashion. It has also been alleged that Rajendra Bandopadhyay, Bhaskar Purakayastha, Hiralal Bhattacharya of Commerce panel superseded earlier serials. Smt. Krishna Roy of Bengali Panel was superseded by Mala Ghosh and others. Uttara Das of Chemistry Panel was superseded by Tripti Mitra. ( 84 ) IT may also be noted that the petitioners have annexed the certificates of letter of appointment of part-time teachers or scrutineer or examiner in the writ petition showing their experience and qualifications. Smt. Krishna Roy of Bengali Panel was superseded by Mala Ghosh and others. Uttara Das of Chemistry Panel was superseded by Tripti Mitra. ( 84 ) IT may also be noted that the petitioners have annexed the certificates of letter of appointment of part-time teachers or scrutineer or examiner in the writ petition showing their experience and qualifications. ( 85 ) ANOTHER affidavit was affirmed by the petitioner No. 1 on 16. 1. 97. In the said affidavit a xerox of the document has been annexed wherefrom it appears that one Snehamoy Bhattacharya teacher of Accountancy in Rishi Bankim College was appointed on 18. 2. 89 out of the panel which was prepared as early as 1985. The aforesaid appointment was made after the Advertisement issued in 1986, 1987 and 1988 inviting applications for empanelment of teachers. It has also been alleged in the affidavit that not only Mr. Snehamoy Bhattacharya but several were appointed out of the panel of 1985 even though one year had passed from the preparation of panel, although the claim of the petitioners for appointment has been ignored on the ground that the panel of 1985 has already expired after lapse of one year. A xerox copy of the report published in a Bengali Daily 'ganashakti' on 7. 9. 94 has also been annexed to the said affidavit to show that Chairman of the College Service Commission Prof. Nityananda Saha gave a statement that the validity of the existing panel would continue and reference was also made to statement of the Chairman of the Commission indicating that about 500 new teachers have been appointed in different Colleges from that panel. It was urged referring to the aforesaid facts that the panel actually did not lapse and was allowed to continue and the recommendations were made from the said panel on pick and choose basis according to the sweet will of the respondent. ( 86 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Chairman and Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission is that after the W. B. College Service Commission Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force, no lecturer or Principal of an aided non-Government College in West Bengal can be appointed without recommendation of the said Commission. Mr. 4 and 5 Chairman and Secretary of the West Bengal College Service Commission is that after the W. B. College Service Commission Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) came into force, no lecturer or Principal of an aided non-Government College in West Bengal can be appointed without recommendation of the said Commission. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, learned Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4 has referred to section 17 of the said Act which is provided as follows :"the Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make Regulations for discharging its function under the said Act. Such Regulation may provide for the manner of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of a College under sub-section 1 of section 8. " ( 87 ) MR. Mandal has further submitted on the basis of the power conferred under section 17 of the said Act, the Commission made Regulation No. 1 with the previous approval of the State Government which is called the West Bengal College Service Commission (manner of selection of persons) for appointment to the post of teachers including Principals Regulation, 1989. ( 88 ) HE has also referred to Regulation 8 and 9 of the said Regulation No. 1 and has submitted that pursuant to the Regulation advertisements have been published being No. 1/86 and 1/87 by the Commission the writ petitioner applied for empanelment of his name in Philosophy subject as he has requisite qualification at that time. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and/or Interview Board of the said Commission and his name was empanelled in serial No. 63 (b) in respect of panel of Calcutta University and serial No. 43 (b) in respect of the Vidyasagar University. ( 89 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the Commission that the petitioner has been working as part-time lecturer in Philosophy purely on temporary basis in Jatindra Rajendra Mahavidyalaya in the district of Murshidabad by the appointment letter dated 20. 4. 87. The said appointment has been made without any recommendation from the said Commission since no recommendation is required for appointment of part-time lecturers. The petitioner, however, though a part-time lecturer, appeared at the interview and wanted to be empanelled since the petitioner name would not be recommended in the approved post of lecturer unless he is empanelled. 4. 87. The said appointment has been made without any recommendation from the said Commission since no recommendation is required for appointment of part-time lecturers. The petitioner, however, though a part-time lecturer, appeared at the interview and wanted to be empanelled since the petitioner name would not be recommended in the approved post of lecturer unless he is empanelled. ( 90 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner as a part-time lecturer cannot confer any right to regular employment to the approved full-time post. ( 91 ) IT has further been contended that the said Act requires appointment on the basis of recommendation of the Commission in accordance with the merit list. In view of the provisions of the said Act, there cannot be any appointment otherwise than in accordance with the mode of selection prescribed in the said Act and Regulations framed thereunder. In this connection Mr. Mandal has relied upon the following decisions :- (I) Unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mukul Gopal Mukherjee, J. as he then was and Prabir Kumar Samanta, J, dated 15. 2. 96 in FMAT No. 1840 of 1995 with 2123 of 1995 with 2471 of 1995 (The Principal Bangabasi College v. Rita Neyogi and Ors.) (ii) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 . (iii) Dr. M. A. Haque and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 213 . (paragraphs 7 and 8) ( 92 ) MR. Mandal has further contended that a person appearing for selection before the interview Board in order to be appointed as a direct recruit although having had taken a chance for such selection cannot thereafter be permitted to turn around and ask for regularisation or absorption contrary to the merit list. It is not open to the petitioner to claim the best of both the world. In this connection he has relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. C. G. Desai and Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC 246 particularly to paragraph 16 thereof. ( 93 ) MR. Mandal has further submitted that it is not open to the Commission to make recommendation otherwise than in accordance with the Regulation and the merit list. reported in AIR 1974 SC 246 particularly to paragraph 16 thereof. ( 93 ) MR. Mandal has further submitted that it is not open to the Commission to make recommendation otherwise than in accordance with the Regulation and the merit list. ( 94 ) IT has also been contended that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for a direction contrary to the merit position and in disregard of the claim of the selection person. He has also relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 in this connection. ( 95 ) MR. Mandal has further contended that the selection made by the expert and assessment of academic records by the academic authorities, have to be given due regards. He has further relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of The Unicwcairy of Mysore and Ors. v. C. D. Govinda Rao and Anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 . ( 96 ) IT has been submitted by Mr. Mandal that the name of the petitioner is no longer in the panel as the panel is not in existence after lapse of statutory period and since the petitioner not being empanelled candidate at present, he cannot be recommended by the Commission. It has also been submitted that new panel in the subject of Philosophy has come into existence on the basis of advertisement No. 2/95 of the same Commission where the name of the petitioner is not appearing since the petitioner has not requisite qualification of having 55% marks in his Master's Degree level and as such cannot be appointed as a lecturer in a College. ( 97 ) IT has also been submitted that the UGC has issued direction that no candidate should be appointed as lecturer of a College who has less than 55% marks in Master's Degree. The said direction has been accepted by the State Government and the petitioner having less than 55% marks in his Master's Degree examination cannot be appointed as lecturer in any College. ( 98 ) THE question for determination in the instant case is if the petitioners have a right to appointment since their names were included in the panel prepared in the year 1985. ( 98 ) THE question for determination in the instant case is if the petitioners have a right to appointment since their names were included in the panel prepared in the year 1985. It is not in dispute that the petitioners appeared at the interview and were selected. It is obligatory that appointment under section 9 of the West Bengal College Service Commission Act, 1978 that appointments to the posts of teachers of a College shall be made on the recommendation of the Commission. ( 99 ) PARAGRAPH 8 (3) of the Regulation provides that the panel prepared by the Commssion shall remain valid for one year from the date of its finalisation by the Commission. ( 100 ) IN the instant case, the names of the petitioners were included in a panel prepared in 1990. Thereafter, the next panel was prepared in the months of August-September, 1996 in some streams after an advertisement No. 2/95 issued on 28th May, 1995. ( 101 ) IT is not in dispute that the panel of 1990 in which the petitioners' names were included was prepared pursuant to the three successive advertisements in the year 1986, 1987 and 1988. The Commission has always been liberal in regard to the duration of the panel and never before the Commission ever insisted that the validity of a panel would subsist only for one year. ( 102 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the Commission that no recommendation has been made from the panel of 1990 after 31st January, 1995 but that contention is not true. On June 19, 1995 the Commission recommended the names of Rajendra Bandopadhyay and Bhaskar Purakayastha for appointment as teachers in City College. The contention however, is not correct since the appointment was made subbequent thereto as already noted and as appears from annexure 's' to the affidavit being affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 13. 9. 96. ( 103 ) EVEN assuming that the said contention is correct, it stands admitted that the said panel was kept valid upto 31st January, 1995 and appointments have been made from the said panel and the said fact itself shows that the panel was kept alive from 1992-31st January, 1995 and the paragraph 8 of the Regulations which provides that the panel is enacted for one year from the date of finalisation has not been given effect to. ( 104 ) THE facts on record clearly suggest that the panel did not lapse and continued to remain valid upto 1995 although several appointments were also made from the persons whose names were not included in the panel. The appointments were made in most arbitrary and haphazard manner and the Commission did not follow the regulation of reviewing vacancy position for each year as contemplated under the regulation. Advertisements for fresh panel was to be only in 28th May, 1995 and the next panel was prepared in September, 1996. Assuming that the appointments have been made from the panel of 1990 all along until the advertisement has been published in May, 1995, it has to be ascertained what is the vacancy position as on May, 1995 and on the basis of the petitioners' position in the panel confer upon them if they have any right to be absorbed. ( 105 ) NO explanation has been furnished in the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commission as to why the vacancy position was not reviewed year to year and what was the reason for not filling up the vacancies for which the panel was prepared. ( 106 ) THE College Service Commission was directed to produce each year's vacancy position from 1990 to 1995 prior to the date of advertisement. The Secretary of the College Service Commission was also directed to produce records to that effect through a competent officer on the next date what the matter appeared for further hearing. ( 107 ) THE matter thereafter appeared in the list on 6. 11. 1998 wherein it was recorded as follows :-"pursuant to my order dated August 28, 1998, report has been filed and records have been produced by the West Bengal College Service Commission. Copy of the report be supplied by the learned Advocate on behalf of the said Commission to the other sides. Leave is given to inspect the records. Let the matters appear as part heard on 10. 11. 1998. " ( 108 ) IT has been contended by Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate for the petitioner that in the instant case the respondent authorities has fixed up a cut-off date being 31st January, 1995 and allowed the panel continued upto that date. There is no basis or right to fix the said cut-off date, according to him. ( 109 ) MR. Chatterjee learned Advocate for the petitioner that in the instant case the respondent authorities has fixed up a cut-off date being 31st January, 1995 and allowed the panel continued upto that date. There is no basis or right to fix the said cut-off date, according to him. ( 109 ) MR. Chatterjee, has also contended that no reason has also been assigned for fixing such cut-off date and he has also pointed out that such arbitrary fixation of cut-off date has also been arbitrarily ignored by appointing three persons from the said panel after the said cut-off date of 31. 1. 1995. The names of the said three persons who were chosen from the said panel of 1990 after the cut-off date of 31. 1. 1995 are mentioned hereinbelow :- (I)sri Rajendra Bandapadhyay (Commerce) (ii)sri Narendara Nath Chandi (Philosophy) (iii) Ms. Ira Chatterjee (Phisics ). ( 110 ) IT has also been contended by Mr. Chatterjee that particular regulation which provides for validity of the panel for one year is directory in nature and not mandatory since the authorities took it in that way and did not strictly comply with the list mentioned in the panel, on the contrary after the lapse of one year and giving appointments even after the cut-off date of 31. 1. 1995. Such action of the authorities as mentioned hereinbefore cannot be negated by an affidavit affirmed to contest the case. ( 111 ) IT has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the records show otherwise affidavit cannot improve the position since and the deponent who affirmed the affidavit will not be treated as honest officer. ( 112 ) MR. Bhattacharyya has submitted that the said panel in fact has continued since the authorities acted on the basis of the panel after expiry of one year, In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of reported in (1993) 1 LLJ 611. He has also relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of Deb Narayan Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others. reported in (1997) 2 CHN 435 and in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India and others reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 687. ( 113 ) APART from the said submission of Mr. He has also relied upon the judgment and decision in the case of Deb Narayan Chatterjee and others v. Union of India and others. reported in (1997) 2 CHN 435 and in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India and others reported in (1984) Supp. SCC 687. ( 113 ) APART from the said submission of Mr. Chatterjee, submission made by Bikash Bhattacharjee to the effect that the action on the part of the authorities in appointing Talapatra, who was below in rank was arbitrary also appears to be significant. ( 114 ) THE petitioners have also alleged that there is undue discrimination against the petitioner. It has also been contended that according to Regulation 7 and 8 (1), a panel of candidates for appointment as teachers is prepared strictly in order of merit after selection and obviously recommendations also must be made accordingly in order of merit. But as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit-of-facts dated 3. 6. 1996 the petitioners namely, petitiner No. 1 (Sr. No. 59a); Subir Sinha, petitioner No. 3 (Sr. No. 70b); Dwipen Biswas, petitioner No. 4 (Sr. No. 58b) and Subhajit Banerjee, petitioner No. 6 (Sr. No. 70c); have been superseded. They all belong to the Commerce Panel of Calcutta University and they have been superseded by :- (1) anurekha Nath (Sr. No. 59e) (2)gourahari Manna (Sr. No. 59d) (3)kanika Mukherjee (Sr. No. 61) (4)ratna Mallick (Sr. No. 62a) (5)jayanta Nath Kundu (Sr. No. 70d) (6) ranjana Roy (Sr. No. 70e) (7)rajendra Bandopadhyay (Sr. 59b ). ( 115 ) MUKUL Saha (Sr. No. 58a) had already, been recommended. The aforesaid facts go to show that the commission has operated the panel malafide and the petitioners have been illegally superseded. ( 116 ) A report was submitted by Nitish Chandra Ganguly, Secretary, West Bengal College Service Commission pursuant to the order of this Court. It appears from the said report that the Commission decided to fill up all existing vacancies till December, 1994 or the panels prepared as per advertisement No. 1/88 and also to fill up all vacancies that would be reported to the Commission till 31. 1. 1995 in a series of recommendation meetings. It was also recorded in the said report that the last of such meetings was held on 31. 1. 1. 1995 in a series of recommendation meetings. It was also recorded in the said report that the last of such meetings was held on 31. 1. 1995 after that the life of the panels were not extended and several recommendations were made in different subjects as per vacancy list prepared by the office as also to such vacancy report as were submitted by Colleges on that date received during the recommendations meeting. ( 117 ) IT is, therefore, admitted position that, the commission itself decided to fill up all existing vacancies. The requisition from Colleges for filling up vacancies in different subjects as on 31. 1. 1995 were attached with the report. It is, therefore, apparent that the said panel did not lapse on the expiry of one year as submitted by the respondent. On the contrary, the Commission treated the panel as alive for more than 4 years and filled up the vacancies that arose during all these years. ( 118 ) IN this connection, judgment and decision in the case of Deb Narayan Chatterjee and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1997) CHN 435 wherein the following principles have been laid down :- (1) A panel is deemed to be kept alive when even one application is given from such panel after its alleged expiry. (2) When all the materials are before the Court, the Court can grant prayer of the petition to give relief to the petitioner if circumstances so warrant. (3) It is true that the High Court cannot continue a select list which has elapsed by efflux of time but if the authorities themselves keep such selected list alive by their conduct, the High Court also can treat such select list as alive and issue necessary mandate on the authority concerned to act upon it. (4) Although an empanelled candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment yet the appointing authority cannot ignore the selected panel, or decline to make the appointment therefrom at its whim and caprice. (5) The plea of dealy in filing a writ petition does not arise at all when the panel itself is deemed to be continuing one. (4) Although an empanelled candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right of appointment yet the appointing authority cannot ignore the selected panel, or decline to make the appointment therefrom at its whim and caprice. (5) The plea of dealy in filing a writ petition does not arise at all when the panel itself is deemed to be continuing one. ( 119 ) CONSTRUING regulation 8 (3) of the said Act it appears to me that the said fixation of the period of the validity of panel for the period of one year is only directory and not mandatory. The said regulation does not visit with penalty in infraction of regulation 8 (3) which according to rules of construction is a sure indication that the Rule is directory and not mandatory. ( 120 ) IN fact, it appears that the Commission also treated the said regulation as directory and as such continued the panel till 31. 1. 1995. The report of the Commission filed in Court also shows that Regulation 8 (3) has been arbitratily dealt with and used. The validity period of the panel has been extended beyond one year according to the sweet will of the Commission. It also appears from the records produced by the Commission that recommendations have been made for filling vacancies in posts of teachers as late as 1997 from the said panels of 1990. In the affidavit affirmed on 21. 8. 1998 by Santasri Choudhuri (Sengupta) (Chairman. WBCSC) instances of such filling up of vacancies have been mentioned. ( 121 ) IN this connection, judgment and decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chitamon relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner wherein it has been held that whatever lends itself to arbitrary use is necessarily unreasonable and must be quashed. ( 122 ) IT has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that Regulation 8 (3) is arbitrary and therefore ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 122 ) IT has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that Regulation 8 (3) is arbitrary and therefore ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. He has submitted prior to 1979 that is, Ajay Hasia's case, the Supreme Court almost consistently held that in order to bring any order or rule or legislation within the mischief of Article 14, such order or rule or legislation must be a class legislation but the class must disclose a rational differentia differentiating it from other classes or things and further the separate treatment of the class must subserve some object and must have some reasonable relation to the said object. ( 123 ) HOWEVER, after Ajay Hasia's case, the Supreme Court substituted the formula by another, namely, whatever is arbitrary is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 124 ) ACCORDING to learned Advocate for the petitioners, report of the Commission clearly shows that the Regulation 8 (3) has been arbitrarily dealt with and used. The panels have been extended beyond one year according to the sweet will of the Commission. ( 125 ) I am unable to accept the said contention that the said Regulation is invalid since it appears that the Regulation has been kept valid by the Commission itself. In my view, the provision in the Regulation is directory in nature and the Commission itself allowed the panel to continue till 31. 1. 1995 and as such the Regulation 8 (3) was not given effect to and it is therefore not open to the Commission to take the plea that the panel remained valid for one year only. ( 126 ) IT appears that not only the Commission allowed the panel to continue till 31. 1. 1995 but even on 19. 6. 1995 the Commission recommended the names of Rajendra Bandopadhyay and Bhaskar Purokasthya for appointment as teachers in City College. The conduct of the Commission therefore shows that never did the Commission ever stick to the Regulation 8 (3) in respect of the period of validity of a panel. The Commission has always relaxed the Regulation 8 (3 ). ( 127 ) IN the primary Teachers' case it was held that the rule regarding the validity of the panel is obligatory and cannot be relaxed. The Commission has always relaxed the Regulation 8 (3 ). ( 127 ) IN the primary Teachers' case it was held that the rule regarding the validity of the panel is obligatory and cannot be relaxed. But there the rule was made by the State Government and obviously the District School Board or the Primary Teachers' Council could not obviously ignore the said rules. ( 128 ) IN the instant case, however, the period of validity of the panel has been fixed by Regulation made by the Commission and the Commission itself relaxed Regulation in certain cases. The Commission has effected such relaxation since it started making panels of candidates fit for appointment as teachers. The decision of Teachers' case does not therefore apply. ( 129 ) REFERENCE was also made to a decision of this Court by learned Advocate for the Commission in the case of State of West Bengal v. Monoranjan Mondal and Others reported in (1996) 1 CLJ 425 wherein the Court held that when validity period of a panel is fixed, no appointment can be given on the basis of the panel when that panel expires. But this observation would apply only where the panel for appointment. In the instant case, the panel is a panel for recommendation for appointment, and in fact, recommendation has been made by the Commission itself on several occasions after the expiry of one year even upto June, 1995 as already noted. ( 130 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the Commission that after the Advertisement 2 of 1995, the U. G. C. directive of minimum 55% in M. A. and passing the SLET Test or NET Test is obligatory. It further appears from UGC Circular that Circular would not apply to those who have been empanelled before September, 1991. Absolutely irrelevant reference has been made to the case of Dr. Arundhati Ajit Paragaonkar ( AIR 1995 SC 962 ) wherein the Supreme Court said that the recruitment rules of selection "cannot be substituted by human considerations. " In the present case the petitioners are not asking for any human considerations but demanding implementation of UGC requirement of minimum 55% in M. A. and passing the SLET Test or NET Test cannot apply to those who were empanelled prior to September, 1991. " In the present case the petitioners are not asking for any human considerations but demanding implementation of UGC requirement of minimum 55% in M. A. and passing the SLET Test or NET Test cannot apply to those who were empanelled prior to September, 1991. Although the petitioner No. 1, Aloke Ghosal scored 1st Class Marks in his Master Degree Level and petitioner No. Lopamudra Roy Scored 59% in her Master Degree Level. ( 131 ) DURING the course of hearing, I repeatedly asked the learned Advocate for the respondents to submit a report and to produce all records on the vacancy position as on 31. 1. 1995 in different Colleges relating to the respective subjects of the petitioners concerned in the aforesaid writ petitions. Pursuant to my direction, a report was filed and records were produced by the West Bengal College Service Commission. The submission of the respondents was that many brilliant students in each year have passed M. A. getting more than 55% marks in their post graduate examination who were waiting to get a chance of being empanelled. Accordingly, the panel in which the petitioners names were appearing cannot be kept alive for an indefinite period although they could not be provided with permanent employment of lecturer. The grievance of the petitioners on the other hand is that persons who are such below in the panel position were given appointment by the respondent authority superseding their natural claim in respective panel/subjects. The learned Advocate for the respondents, however, could not satisfy the Court on this point by producing records as to why seniors in the panel were not given appointment as lecturer in the appropriate time when there was vacancy in respective Colleges and the panel was not cancelled at that time. Had the vacancies been filled up from the then existing panel, the petitioner could get their chance for such appointment against the vacancies arose at that time. It is not in dispute that the respondents were allowed to keep the panel alive for so many years without cancelling the same on the one hand, and did not fill up the vacancies that arose in the mean time from that panel. It is not in dispute that the respondents were allowed to keep the panel alive for so many years without cancelling the same on the one hand, and did not fill up the vacancies that arose in the mean time from that panel. ( 132 ) IN my view, it is highly discriminatory on the part of the respondents since the petitioners were all along under the hope that they will get their appointment as lecturer in the normal course against the then existing vacancies and their position in their panel. During the pendency of the writ petitions, there was also interim order of the Court not to fill up vacancies from the new panel during the pendency of the writ applications without the leave of the Court. The said order was however subsequently modified by an order dated 22. 12. 95 in F. M. A. T. No. 3137/95 whereby 9 posts of lecturers in different subjects were kept unfiled for protection of the 9 writ petitioners/respondents, in the appeal. ( 133 ) IT has also been submitted that no reason has been assigned in support of fixing of cut off date on 31. 11. 1995 and such action on the part of the respondents are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate in C. O. 13673 (W) of 1995 also relied upon the case of Orissa High Court Division Bench case reported in 1993 (1) LLJ 611 and the decision of the High Court of Calcutta reported in (1977) 2 CHN 435. Mr. Bhattacharyya has further submitted when a panel has been prepared the same should be exhausted first in absence of any specific bar by statute. ( 134 ) IN the circumstances already noted, it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to exhaust the panel first since it allowed the panel to continue. ( 135 ) THE Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 22. 12. 95 in FMAT 3137 of 1995 in which the 6 petitioners in this case No. C. O. 12178 (W)/95 were added parties. ( 135 ) THE Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 22. 12. 95 in FMAT 3137 of 1995 in which the 6 petitioners in this case No. C. O. 12178 (W)/95 were added parties. It was ordered by the Division Bench as follows :"we grant leave to the College Service Commission to proceed in the matter for the purpose of preparing a fresh panel in accordance with law at their discretion subject to the decision of this appeal and the College Service Commission shall be at liberty to forward their recommendation to the respective College authorities for recruitment of lecturers and to see that two posts in Bengali, one post in Geography, four posts in Commerce and two posts in Philosophy are not filled up permanently. Other posts may be filled up permanently and that would not affect because of any order that may be passed. We make it clear that scope of the writ petition as also the appeal are confined to nine lecturers and protection is only granted to nine lecturers and protection is only granted to nine parties and to no other person and we make it clear that the College Service Commission will be at liberty to take interview for making a fresh panel and give effect to such panel and forward the names of the candidates to the respective College authorities for the purpose of giving appointment in accoordance with law. " ( 136 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to recommend the names of the petitioners from the panel prepared in 1990 for appointment against the vacancies which have been directed not to be filled up by interim ordre passed by this Court from time to time. On the basis of such recommendations, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to complete all other formalities and give appointment to the petitioners in C. O. 12178 (W)/95, C. O. 4949 (W)/c. O. 10920 (W)/95 and C. O. No. 10038 (W)/95 against the permanent posts of Lecturer in respective subjects against the nine vacancies kept vacant pursuant to the order dated 22. 12. 95 passed by the Division Bench in FMAT 3137/95. 12. 95 passed by the Division Bench in FMAT 3137/95. Such recommendation will be completed by the respondent West Bengal College Service Commission within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to give appointment to the said petitioners immediately thereafter. In respect of the petitioner in C. O. 13673 (W)/95 although there was no interim order, the facts of the case being similar to the other writ petitions as above, the respondent West Bengal College Service Commission is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner from the panel of 1990 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order so that appointment is given by the concerned respondent in the event there is any vacancy or when such vacancy occurs. It is made clear that since the writ petitions are long pending, the excess age of the petitioners in all the writ petitions herein, will not be a bar in recommending and/or giving such appointment. All the writ petitions as above are accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Stay of the order, as prayed for by Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the respondents, is refused. Xerox certified copy of this order if applied for by the parties, will be supplied by office expeditiously, on usual terms. Petition disposed of.