JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner challenging the appointment of 4th respondent, Mr. Sanjay made vide letter No. RIT(E)/ 1522/2000 dated 28.2.2000 whereby he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department. The petitioner has also challenged the panel as was prepared on 23.11.1999 whereby 4th respondent was included in the list of successful candidates. 2. The case of petitioner is that the respondent-RIT issued Advertisement No. KIT (E)-1236/99 dated 22.4.1999 for appointment to the teaching posts including the post of Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) in the then scale of Rs. 3700-5700/-. The petitioner as also 4th respondent, Sri Sanjay and other applied. It is alleged that though the 4th respondent was not qualified and there was no post to fill up from the waiting list, but because of mala fide and illegality committed by the 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad, the respondent No. 4 was appointed vide impugned letter dated 28.8.2000 as Assistants Professor (Mechanical Engineering). 3. The grounds to challenge the appointment of 4th respondent as highlighted by his counsel are as follows : (i) The 4th respondent was not qualified having no five years experience either in teaching or industry or research at the appropriate level; (ii) There was no third post available when the advertisement was issued on 22.4.1999. The subsequent vacancy could not have been filled up out of the panel or waiting list prepared in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.4.1999; (iii) The 4th respondent was appointed because of illegal help of 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad; AND (iv) The so-called Selection Board was not competent to select as the expert, Chandrika Roy was not appointed as the Chairman of the Selection Board by the Board of Governors. In respect to first question of eligibility, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 4th respondent was a Post Graduate Engineering student at Allahabad during 1996-98. For such period, any experience certificate given to him by Delhi Company, cannot be accepted. If such experience from 1996 is not taken into consideration, it will be evident that the 4th respondent had no five years experience as per advertisement as on the cut-off date. The aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner was denied by the 3rd respondent as also the 4th respondent. To find out the truth, the original records were called for which I have gone through. The aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner was denied by the 3rd respondent as also the 4th respondent. To find out the truth, the original records were called for which I have gone through. It appears that the 4th respondent claimed five years experience in industry at the appropriate level i.e. the period he obtained experience after passing B.E. degree. He was appointed in M/s. Syner India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and worked between 1993 to 15th August, 1994 at Allahabad where he was posted. During this period, the 4th respondent was also a part time M.E. student completed 1st and 2nd semester in evening course. Thereafter the 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited, New Delhi and worked between 23.9.1994 to 1.8.1995 at New Delhi. For this reason, the 4th respondent could not appear in part time M.E. course during the aforesaid period. Subsequently, 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., New Delhi and worked between 3rd August, 1995 to 1st April, 1998 at Naini Office, Allahabad. During this period, he having posted at Allahabad, could attend the part time M.E. Course in evening and completed 3rd, 4th and 5th semester. The M.E. course being part time, instead of 4th semester it was 5th semester course. Thereafter the 4th respondent was appointed in M/s. Tata Projects Limited, Hyderabad where he worked since 3.8.1998 upto 22.2.2000. 4. From the aforesaid fact, I find that the 4th respondent had requisite five years experience in the industries at appropriate level as on the cut-off date and thus, he was eligible for appointment. 5. In respect to second question, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had not made clear the number of posts of Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) as were vacant at the time of advertisement. According to him, there were two posts of Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) vacant which were filled up by those whose names were appearing at serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the merit list. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the moment "existing vacancies" are filled up from the panel, the remaining names of such panel are called waiting list. Out of such waiting list, no appointment can be made against the future vacancies but can be acted upon to fill up non-joining vacancies out of such waiting list. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the moment "existing vacancies" are filled up from the panel, the remaining names of such panel are called waiting list. Out of such waiting list, no appointment can be made against the future vacancies but can be acted upon to fill up non-joining vacancies out of such waiting list. It was pointed out that there being no third post vacant after filling up the first and second, the names of 4th respondent and others remained in the waiting list. The third vacancy having occurred subsequently, the appointment of 4th respondent against such vacancy out of the waiting list is illegal. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 319 and in the case of Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 488 . In respect to second question, the submission made by Mr. A.K. Mehta, the counsel for the RIT is that the appointment of 4th respondent was made against anticipated vacancy. The Selection Committee after interview of eligible candidates, prepared a panel and recommended three names for appointment on merit, namely : 1. Dr. Ram Vinay Sharma 2. Dr. Shailendra Kumar 3. Dr. Sanjay (4th respondent). The third name was recommended as by the time of selection, it came to the notice of the authorities of RIT that another post to fall vacant as one of the Assistant Professor was to retire immediately. Mr. Mehta, counsel relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Rajiv Ranjan v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 319 to suggest that the anticipated vacancy can be filled up from the existing panel. Similar stand was taken by the counsel for the 4th respondent. 6. The question as to what is waiting list, whether waiting list can be treated as source of recruitment as and when necessary and how long it can operate has been explained and decided by the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 Spply (2) SCC 591. It held that once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1994 Spply (2) SCC 591. It held that once the selected candidates join and no vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period, where no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no right to claim appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the selection was held for it. The "reasonable period" has not been specifically explained by the courts, if no life period of panel prescribed under a rule. However, now it is a settled law that the life period of panel can at best be one year from the date of recommendation. In the case of Dr. Sheo Shankar Jha v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 298, the question of life of a panel fell for consideration before the Patna High Court. The Court held that life of a panel should generally be for a period of 12 months. The issues as to which vacancies out of existing, anticipated and future can be filled up from the existing panel or waiting list fell for consideration before the Courts from time to time and matter stands decided. In the case of Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, 1996 (4) SCC 319 , the Supreme Court held that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for the future vacancies. In the case of Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (8) SCC 488 , the Supreme Court held that the waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. The candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extend that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative. In the case of State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh, reported in 1994 Supply (3) SCC 308, similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court which held that a panel can be used only for filing up the vacancies for which it was prepared and not the future vacancies. In the case of State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh, reported in 1994 Supply (3) SCC 308, similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court which held that a panel can be used only for filing up the vacancies for which it was prepared and not the future vacancies. In the case of Rajiv Ranjan v. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 319 , the Division Bench of the Patna High Court taking into consideration the different decisions of the Supreme Court, held that advertisement as well as selection can be made only for clear vacancies - existing or anticipated, but not for the vacancies which may occur in future. 7. From the decisions aforesaid, it is clear that : The life of a panel/waiting list operates for the period as prescribed under the rules/guidelines. Where no specific period is prescribed under the rule/guideline, the panel/waiting list can operate for a reasonable period, approximately one year but not more than that. The selection and appointment can be made only against the clear vacancies - existing or anticipated but not against the future vacancies, subject to rule/guideline, if any, to the contrary, "Anticipated vacancies" means the vacancies which can be visualised on the date of selection/preparation of panel, such as the post(s) which may fall vacant because of retirement during the life period of a panel. "Future vacancies" means the vacancies in respect to which there is no information or idea on the date of selection/preparation of panel. The non-joining vacancies can be filled up from the same panel/waiting list during the life period of a panel. 8. In the present case, as the 4th respondent has been appointed against anticipated vacancy occurred during the life time of panel because of retirement of an Asstt. Professor (Mechanical), of which the authorities had knowledge, the appointment of 4th respondent against such anticipated vacancy is just and proper. 9. The third issue as raised is mala fide of 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad, who is stated to be instrumental in the appointment of 4th respondent because of undue favour given to him by the present principal in the matter of transfer of his daughter from MII, Muzaffarpur to RIT, Jamshedpur. 9. The third issue as raised is mala fide of 5th respondent, Dr. B.N. Prasad, who is stated to be instrumental in the appointment of 4th respondent because of undue favour given to him by the present principal in the matter of transfer of his daughter from MII, Muzaffarpur to RIT, Jamshedpur. Though such submission has been made but no relevant evidence available on record to hold mala fide against the 5th respondent in the matter of appointment of 4th respondent, merely because a candidate is related to a V.I.P. cannot be a disqualification, nor such ground can be taken to hold mala fide of one or other. The third question raised on behalf of petitioner cannot be accepted, it is, accordingly, answered. The fourth and last grounds taken on behalf of petitioner is that the expert of the Selection Board, namely, Chandrika Roy was not appointed by the Board of Governors. However, such submission cannot be accepted at this belated stage, the petitioner having appeared before the Selection Board and having not selected. 10. From the discussions aforesaid, it will be evident that there was no illegality committed in the matter of selection and appointment of 4th respondent as Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering), R.I.T., Jamsedpur. 11. The writ petition being without any merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.