Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. For appointment against four posts of Accounts Officer (in the unreserved category) in the Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent no.1 (the writ petitioner) was selected by the selection committee as the fifth candidate, in order of merit. One of the selected candidates, second in order of merit did not report for joining. Thus, one of the posts intended to be filled up remained vacant. The writ petitioner claimed appointment against the post remaining vacant due to the non-joining of the second candidate selected for appointment. Failing to get a favourable response from the Electricity Board, the writ petitioner came to this court in CWJC No. 7526 of 1997 seeking appropriate directions to the Board for his appointment as Accounts Officer. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order, dated 17.11.1997 passed by a learned Judge of this court sitting singly. The Board has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of this Courts letters patent against that judgment. 2. In the judgment coming under appeal, the learned single Judge found and held that: "Therefore, the petitioner must be treated to be a candidate whose name is appearing in the waiting list as one of the four persons did not turn up. The petitioner has, therefore, a right to be considered against the said vacant post as being a candidate in the waiting list." (emphasis added) 3. Further, referring to a Supreme Court decision in Gujrat State Deputy Executive Engineers V/s. State of Gujrat and others, (1994) Suppl. Vol. II S.C.C. 595, the learned single Judge observed that: "It is not the case of the respondent Board that no appointment can be made from the said merit list." 4. Making reference to yet another decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Ram V/s. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.703, the learned single Judge made the following observation: "In that case also in a somewhat similar situation the Supreme Court directed the respondents to recommend the names of persons who were in the waiting list for appointment within certain time frame....... " (emphasis added) 5. " (emphasis added) 5. The learned Judge brushed aside the Boards plea that during the pendency of the litigation an advertisement was issued for filling up the post in question along with some other posts of Accounts Officer falling vacant later on and went on to direct the Chairman of the Board to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment to the vacant post in the cadre of Accounts Officer pursuant to the previous advertisement. 6. It is evident that the judgment under appeal is founded on the premise that the select panel that was prepared for appointment against the four posts consisted of, apart from the four selected candidates, a waiting list containing the single name of the petitioner and as one of the posts remained vacant due to non- joining of one of the selected candidates, a right for being considered for the post accrued to the petitioner who was on the waiting list. If this premise is true, then nothing can be said against the judgment under appeal but in case this premise itself turns out to be unfounded, it may not be possible to sustain the judgment. Unfortunately a closer scrutiny of the material facts and circumstances, in the light of the statutory rules regarding recruitment to the post of Accounts Officer (which rules were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge) belie the premise that apart from the select list of four candidates there was a waiting panel containing the name of the writ petitioner. 7. Rule 8 of the Bihar State Electricity Board Accounts Services Cadre Rules, 1991 contain the provisions relating to direct recruitment to the post of Accounts Officer. Sub-rules (iii), (iv) and (v) of rule 8 which are relevant for the present are reproduced below: "(iii) The candidate who are called for interview shall be interviewed by a Selection Committee consisting : "(a) Chairman (b) Member (Finance) (c) Member (Administration) and (d) Member (Technical) (e) one outside expert to be accepted by the Chairman. Sub-rules (iii), (iv) and (v) of rule 8 which are relevant for the present are reproduced below: "(iii) The candidate who are called for interview shall be interviewed by a Selection Committee consisting : "(a) Chairman (b) Member (Finance) (c) Member (Administration) and (d) Member (Technical) (e) one outside expert to be accepted by the Chairman. "Proviso; In the matter of recruitment the Board shall be guided by the policy of the State Government in respect of reservation." "(iv) The panel prepared by the Selection Committee taking into consideration of reservation as provided above shall be put up before the Board for approval." "(v) The panel prepared in accordance with sub-rule (iv) above and approved by the Board shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of the preparation of the panel but the Board may under special circumstanses, extend this period by a further period not exceeding six months." 8. From sub-rule (v) of rule 8 as quoted above, it is evident that the panel (from which appointment is to be made) comes into being only after the list prepared by the selection committee is approved by the Board and what can be taken as the panel from which appointment can be made to the posts of Accounts Officer is the list approved by the Board. The list prepared by the selection committee does not assume the character of the panel for making appointment until that list is approved by the Board. 9. The material facts and circumstances of this case are now to be examined keeping this legal position clearly in mind. 10. The Board made an advertisement (vide Employment Notice No. 3/1995) for filling up 21 posts of Accounts Officer. Out of the 21 vacancies, four were available for unreserved category while the rest went to different reserved categories. 103 applications were received in response to the advertisement, out of which 11 were short listed for being called for interview. Ten candidates finally appeared before the selection committee, constituted under sub-rule (iii) of rule 8, for interview which was held on July 6, 1997. No suitable candidate was available in any of the reserved categories and the selection committee could only select five candidates of unreserved category in order of merit. Ten candidates finally appeared before the selection committee, constituted under sub-rule (iii) of rule 8, for interview which was held on July 6, 1997. No suitable candidate was available in any of the reserved categories and the selection committee could only select five candidates of unreserved category in order of merit. From Annexure 1 to the minutes of the proceedings of the selection committee, dated 6.7.1996, it is plain and clear that this list was initially intended to be of only four candidates. The select list was written in hand and from the space between two names and the original serial numbers assigned to the candidates it is evident that initially the list was made of four names with the name of the writ petitioner at the bottom. It seems that it was only after the four names were written down that it was discovered that in preparing the list the selection committee had over looked one candidate, namely, Arvind Kumar who had secured the third highest marks. The name of Arvind Kumar was then added between the names of Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Nand Kumar Jha. As a consequence of putting Arvind Kumar at serial no.3, the next two names were assigned serial numbers 4 and 5 respectively and numbers 4 and 5 were written in figure over the earlier numbers 3 and 4 against their names. It, thus, became a list of five names with the writ petitioner at serial no.5. 11. Although no dispute was ever raised by the writ petitioner regarding the selection of Arvind Kumar being bona fide, in the aforesaid state of the record, the court called for the original files for being completely satisfied about the name of Arvind Kumar being later added at the third serial in that list. The files were duly produced by the Board and on perusal of those files, it became evident that it was a case of over-sight and his name was left to be included in the list due to mistake. 12. Having thus made a list of five names, in order of merit, the selection committee proceeded to put the names against the vacancies following the reservation roster. Vacancies from serials 2 to 28 were available for different reserved categories for which no suitable candidates were found. The first unreserved vacancy was at serial no. 12. Having thus made a list of five names, in order of merit, the selection committee proceeded to put the names against the vacancies following the reservation roster. Vacancies from serials 2 to 28 were available for different reserved categories for which no suitable candidates were found. The first unreserved vacancy was at serial no. 31 against which the name of the first selected candidate Jayant Prasad was shown. Vacancy at serial no. 32 was once again a reserved vacancy. The next unreserved vacancy at serial no.33 went to Sanjay Kumar Sinha, the second selected candidate; the next unreserved vacancy was at serial no. 35 which went to Arvind Kumar and the last unreserved vacancy at serial no. 37 went to Nand Kumar Jha. The name of the writ petitioner was not shown against any vacancy following the reservation roster. The selection committee finally prepared a roster panel of Accounts Officer consisting of four names only which did not include the name of the writ petitioner. 13. At this stage what is of crucial significance is that what went before the Board for its final approval in terms of sub-rule (v) of rule 8 was not the list of five names, including the name of the writ petitioner at serial no. 5, but only the roster panel wherein the selection committee had recommended the names of four candidates for appointment to the four unreserved posts of Accounts Officer (see Annexure 1 containing the agenda for the Boards meeting) and it was this roster panel of four names which was approved by the Board. It is, thus, to be seen that the panel in terms of sub-rule (v) of rule 8 from which appointment could be made to the vacant posts of Accounts Officer consisted of only four names and it did not include any waiting list containing the petitioners name from which the petitioner could be considered for appointment against the post remaining vacant. Thus, the idea of a waiting list containing the name of the writ petitioner is not founded on facts and in the eye of law the name of the writ petitioner was never part of the statutory panel from which appointments could be made to the posts of Accounts Officer. 14. The matter would have been otherwise if all the five names were sent to the Board and had received its approval. 14. The matter would have been otherwise if all the five names were sent to the Board and had received its approval. In that case it could be rightly said that the list approved by the Board had the name of the petitioner in waiting and the waiting list had a life of one year from the date of its preparation. But as shown above, that was not the case. One may here observe that perhaps it would have been better to send one or two names in excess of the total number of vacancies to take care of a situation where one of the selected candidates does not turn up for joining and in future the Board may perhaps follow this practice but in the case in hand the panel that came into being did not have any candidate in waiting and, thus, the question of any waiting list does not arise. 15. Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner strenuously argued that the list of five names prepared by the selection committee was also signed by the Chairman of the Board and that would give the list the necessary sanction. I am unable to accept the submission. The Chairman of the Board put his signature on the list of five names prepared by the Selection Committee as a member of the selection committee in terms of sub-rule (iii) of rule 8 but the composition of the selection committee was materially different from the composition of the Board and as shown above the panel for appointment comes into being only after being approved by the Board and not by the selection committee. 16. Counsel for the writ petitioner also relied upon a number of decisions. I do not feel inclined to refer to those decisions because all of them deal with the rights of the candidates in the waiting list. Those decisions have no application to the facts of this case because in this case no waiting list came into being from which the question of appointment of the writ petitioner could be considered. 17. For the reasons aforesaid I am satisfied that the judgment under appeal suffers from material errors and the learned single Judge was not correct in directing the Chairman of the Board to consider the writ petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Accounts Officer on the basis of Employment Notice No. 3 of 1995. 17. For the reasons aforesaid I am satisfied that the judgment under appeal suffers from material errors and the learned single Judge was not correct in directing the Chairman of the Board to consider the writ petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Accounts Officer on the basis of Employment Notice No. 3 of 1995. I accordingly set aside the judgment and order, dated 17.11.1997 passed in CWJC No. 7526 of 1997 and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent no.1. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 18 I agree.