JUDGMENT : - M.H.S. Ansari, J.: Instant writ application is filed praying for quashing and withdrawing the impugned appointment letter dated 30th April, 1996 being Annexure 'E'. A further direction has been prayed for commanding the respondents to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner in the post of Copyist as per the selection dated 24th April, 1996. 2. The above reliefs prayed for are founded on the ground that the petitioner got a call letter from the Employment Exchange for the post of Copyist in the Judgeship of South 24-Parganas. On the basis of the said letter, petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and was interviewed for the post of Copyist. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected for appointment by the Selection Committee. Reliance has been placed upon Annexure 'B' which reads as under; "OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (S) 24-PARGANAS In view of the Examination Test held on 29.3.96 for appointment of a Copyist the following person has been selected for appointment. 1. Shri Kamal Kumar Roy. District Judge". 3. On 25th April, 1996, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the writ application that an envelope was sent by the Special Messenger to the applicant's permanent address at P/85/2, C.LT. Road, Calcutta 700014. On opening the said letter the petitioner found that on 26th April, 1996 at 10.30 A.M. he was required to join in the post of Copyist. 27th to 29th April, 1996 being holidays however, on 30th April, 1996 when the petitioner went to the office of the District Judge at 10 A.M., he was called by the District Registrar, Alipore and petitioner explained to him the reasons for non-appearing on 26th April, 1996. The learned Registrar asked the private respondent Shri Das to join in the said post on the same date and petitioner was informed that his prayer for appointment will be considered subsequently. It is the case of the petitioner that he was willing to and reported to join in the said on 30th April, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead private respondent Shri Das was asked to join in the post in the place of the petitioner though the name of the non-official respondent is not appearing in the one man panel dated 24th April, 1996. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead private respondent Shri Das was asked to join in the post in the place of the petitioner though the name of the non-official respondent is not appearing in the one man panel dated 24th April, 1996. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the learned Registrar of District Judges Court at Alipure, it is stated that for the vacancy in the post of Copyist which occurred on 1st November, 1995, the same was notified to the Employment Exchange. The vacancy is one served for Scheduled Caste. A list of 12 candidates was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and the name of the petitioner was also sent by the Regional Employment Exchange along with 19 other candidates. All the 32 candidates were called for Test Interview of 29th March, 1996. According to the report of the Selection Committee petitioner stood on the top of the merit list. An offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner wherein he was requested to report before the Registrar on 26th April, 1996 at 10 A.M. along with all his original testimonials with a specific condition that if he fails to report on the said date and hour the offer of appointment shall stand cancelled. The said letter, it is stated was served on 25th April, 1996 before 3.40 P.M. and was received by Shri Arabinda Sarkar. The petitioner did not turn up on 26th April, 1996 at 10 A.M. On the said fact having been reported to the District Judge and as 27th, 28th and 29th were holidays an offer letter was issued upon private respondent, Sri Shib Sankar Das the 2nd man of the merit list, directing him to report by 11.30 A.M. on 30th April, 1996. The said letter is issued to private respondent after cancelling the offer of appointment to Sri Kamal Kr. Roy, petitioner herein. It is also stated that 30th April, 1996 was the day when limit of 6 months for filling up the vacancy was to be completed as per the Govt. Rules. Private respondent appeared before the Registrar at 10 A.M. on 30th April, 1996 and after observing official formalities appointment order was issued and private respondent submitted his joining report at 11.30 A.M. 5. Rules. Private respondent appeared before the Registrar at 10 A.M. on 30th April, 1996 and after observing official formalities appointment order was issued and private respondent submitted his joining report at 11.30 A.M. 5. It is not disputed in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner appeared before the Registrar on 30th April, 1996 it is however stated petitioner filed one report of appearance at 2 P.M. on the said date. According to respondents the offer of petitioner stood cancelled as per condition laid down in the offer letter. 6. A further contention has been raised in the affidavit-in-opposition that neither the ration card nor copy of the voter list or photo identity card has been produced by the petitioner and the maternal uncle of the petitioner has categorically stated in writing that the petitioner is not a permanent resident to the address given. As petitioner has failed to produce any proof of his permanent resident he cannot be considered for appointment. This contention is an after thought as it is not the ground on which petitioner's appointment was revoked. 7. On behalf of the petitioner Ms. Samapti Chatterjee appearing along with Ms. Chaitali Mukherjee, learned Counsel, contended that the petitioner having been duly selected and a one man panel having been prepared, petitioner could not be denied appointment much less on mere failure of the petitioner to report on 26th April, 1996 pursuant to the said letter dated 25th April, 1996. It was further contended that the appointment given to private respondent in' place of the petitioner is vindictive, arbitrary and discriminatory. Private respondent was not selected and his name was not appearing in the panel and therefore cannot be regarded as a person selected by the Selection Committee. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that when the' petitioner reported on 30th April, 1996 he ought to have been given the appointment instead private respondent who appeared on the same day was granted the appointment although 27th, 28th and 29th were holidays. 9. It is now well settled that equality of opportunity' in matters relating to employment or recruitment guaranteed under Article 16(1) are wide enough to include all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent such as the initial appointment. 9. It is now well settled that equality of opportunity' in matters relating to employment or recruitment guaranteed under Article 16(1) are wide enough to include all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent such as the initial appointment. The writ Court would not normally interfere with the selection made by competent administrative authority in the absence of arbitrariness in which case it would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The power of the State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subject to constitutional limitation and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It is also needless to state that all actions by the State and its officers must be just, fair and reasonable. 10. It is in the light of the above well settled principles that the matter on hand would require to be considered. 11. The petitioner, it is not in dispute was selected for appointment in the post. His eligibility is neither in doubt nor in dispute. The only ground on which the offer of appointment is cancelled has been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition namely that the petitioner did not report on 26th April, 1996 at 10 A.M. when he was informed by the letter served on 25th April, 1996 that if he fails to report on the 26th April, 1996 at 10 A.M, the offer of appointment shall stand cancelled. The reporting time, thus by the aforesaid letter issued on 25th April, 1996, was of less than 24 hours. The point for consideration is whether on such facts the impugned action is justified and can be sustained. 12. In my view, such action cannot be regarded as either just or reasonable. Even if as contended on behalf of the respondents the vacancy was required to be filled up within 6 months form its occurrence that is to say by 30th April, 1996 otherwise the vacancy will be ceased as per Government Rules (G.O.1874-F.B. dt. 31.10.90), then it was for the respondents to have taken appropriate action in that behalf by intimating in advance either at the time of Test/Interview that the selected candidate shall have to report within 24 hours of his selection. 31.10.90), then it was for the respondents to have taken appropriate action in that behalf by intimating in advance either at the time of Test/Interview that the selected candidate shall have to report within 24 hours of his selection. Also, there is nothing on record to show that the candidates were informed as to the date when the results of selection would be declared nor any such date of declaration of the result was intimated in advance. The interview was held on 29th March, 1996 and the report was submitted by the Selection Committee on 24th April, 1996. Offer of appointment was issued on 25th April, 1996 to the petitioner and is said to have been served before 3.40 P.M. asking him to report next day at 10 AM. The time taken between the period of Test/Interview held on 29th March, 1996 till the submission of the report by the Selection Committee on 24th April, 1996 would show that less than 24 hours was afforded to the selected candidate to report. The same cannot be said to be either reasonable or adequate. The respondent authorities are responsible for the delay in initiating and thereafter completing the selection process. 6 (six) months period was available to the respondent authorities and less than 24 hours is afforded to the selected candidate (petitioner) to report for duty on threat of cancellation of his selection in default. Such action cannot be justified nor can be sustained. 13. There is yet another aspect of the matter. From Annexure 'B', extracted supra, it will be seen that only the name of petitioner appears as the selected candidate. There is no other candidate in the said panel. In the affidavit-in opposition, it is denied that one man panel was created. It is stated that Selection Committee has sent a merit list along with a report suggesting the first choice, second choice and third choice. 14. From the order-sheet dated 14th February, 2000 it would appear that Samaresh Banerjea, J adjourned the matter with specific directions upon respondents to produce the original record relating to such report of the Selection Committee. It is noticed in His Lordship's order that despite such directions on 17th January, 2000 when the-.matter was taken up once again the respondents failed to produce such records for which the matter adjourned again. It is noticed in His Lordship's order that despite such directions on 17th January, 2000 when the-.matter was taken up once again the respondents failed to produce such records for which the matter adjourned again. Thereafter when the matter was appeared on 14th February, 2000 the records produced by Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal appearing along with Ms. Bandana Das, learned Counsel for the respondents, it is stated in the order, did not contain either any report of the Selection Committee or even any panel formed by the Selection Committee. The matter was thereupon adjourned. When the matter appeared before this Court no such record has been placed before this Court to show that there was any panel containing the name of private respondent. No affidavit in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the private respondent and none has appeared on his behalf. 15. In Purshotam vs. Chariman MSEB, 1999 (6) SCC 49 , Supreme Court considered the question as to the effect of the vacancy having been filed up when another candidate was already appointed in that vacancy. It was held that the right of appointment cannot be taken away for no fault of the candidate and that usurpation of the post by somebody else is no account of the erroneous decision of the employer. Such is the position in the case on hand. 16. For all the reasons aforestated it must be held that the petitioner has been denied the right to the appointment in the post to which he was duly selected and such denial was improper and untenable in law and consequently the impugned appointment of private respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. 17. In the result the writ application is allowed quashing and setting aside the impugned order of appointment issued in favour of private respondent No. 4 being Annexure 'E' to the writ application and consequential direction shall issue to appoint the petitioner in the said post within a period of 1 (one) month from the date hereof. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to an/past monetary or other benefits but shall be entitled to all benefits appertaining to the post of Copyist from the date he joins in the post and in accordance with law. 18. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to an/past monetary or other benefits but shall be entitled to all benefits appertaining to the post of Copyist from the date he joins in the post and in accordance with law. 18. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished, if applied for, to the appearing parties on priority basis. Later 20. Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal, ld. Counsel on behalf of State respondent prayed for stay of the above judgment. The said request was considered and rejected. Appeal allowed. Prayer for stay rejected.