Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This writ petition on behalf of five petitioners has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent Central Bank of India to implement the order of this Court in CWJC No. 212 of 1997 by appointing the petitioners against existing vacancies on Class IV posts. 2. The above said writ petition was filed on behalf of two out of five petitioners herein seeking direction upon the bank to appoint them on the post of Sub-staff pursuant to their selection. The case of the petitioner is that after proper selection a panel was prepared in which their names were included. However the authorities of the Bank are making appointment from outside the panel without considering their claims disregarding the direction of this Court. 3. While considering the claim of the concerned petitioners on the earlier occasion this Court noticed the policy of the Bank with regard to the appointment from the panel to the following effect: "The list of successful candidates in the recruitment test will be empanelled in the order of merit and temporary employees who have worked for 180 days/60 days will have preference over all other successful candidates if any. This panel will remain operative till it is fully exhausted." (emphasis added) In view of the above police the Court observed that the employees who have worked in the Bank for 180/60 days have been given preference in the matter of appointment which cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary especially when the general candidates will not suffer in the sense that they will remain in the penel until they are appointed. Since the names of the concerned petitioners were included in the list of successful candidates and they were to be appointed against the future vacancies, direction was issued to the respondent Bank to appoint the petitioners against future vacancies in order of their placement in the merit list of general category candidates. Having said so the Court added "no future appointment shall be made unless the list as prepared by the Bank is exhausted". 4. In State of U.P. vs. Ram Gopal Shukla, AIR 1981 SC 1041 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a more or less identical situation. The dispute had arisen in the context of the appointment of Tehsildars. Having said so the Court added "no future appointment shall be made unless the list as prepared by the Bank is exhausted". 4. In State of U.P. vs. Ram Gopal Shukla, AIR 1981 SC 1041 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a more or less identical situation. The dispute had arisen in the context of the appointment of Tehsildars. The U.P. Public Service Commission selected 148 persons for substantive appointment as Tehsildar and their names were shown in List A. The Commission also selected 300 other persons for temporary and officiating appointment as Tehsildars during the coming years and their names were included in List B. The respondent was not appointed presumably on account of adverse entry in the service records. Later the adverse entry was expunged. However the appointment was not made in view of the provisions of Rules 7A and 7B which were inserted in the relevant Rules by amendment. The net result of the said Rules was that unless the candidates in the list were exhausted other eligible candidates were not to be considered for appointment. In other words, in view of Rules 7A and 7B no selection was to be held unless 300 persons included in the list B were absorbed. The Supreme Court struck down the rules as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court observed that "though the rules regulating the conditions of service are within the executive power of the State or its legislative power under the proviso to Article 309 such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A rule which contemplates that unless the list of 300 persons is exhausted no other person can be selected, obviously is unjust and it deprives other persons in the same situation of the opportunity of being considered for promotion." 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Indu Bhushan & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1984 PLJR 302, has held that panel cannot be kept alive for indefinite period. The process of empanelment should be an ongoing process. The vacancies available upto the date of preparation of the panel should include the number of posts which could/can be filled by the candidates selected in the selection process. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1984 PLJR 302, has held that panel cannot be kept alive for indefinite period. The process of empanelment should be an ongoing process. The vacancies available upto the date of preparation of the panel should include the number of posts which could/can be filled by the candidates selected in the selection process. Vacancies occurring after the interview and after the preparation of the panel must remain available to all eligible candidates for a fresh and further recruitment. It would be useful to quote the following observations (at page 309 of the report): "If there is time limit like a period of one year or so for the validity of the panel number of vacancies may not matter, But if no time limit is fixed for the life of the panel to end, in my opinion, the only reasonable course is to limit the appointments from the panel to the vacancies available up to the date of the preparation of the panel. Vacancies becoming available subsequently should be left open for all eligible candidates." 6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Gopal Shukla (supra) it is doubtful if the Bank could take any policy decision to make appointments from a particular panel "until it is fully exhausted". As a matter of fact, in view of the decision of this Court in Indu Bhushans case it is also doubtful if the panel could be kept alive for indefinite period of time. It is relevant to mention here that the panel from which the petitioners seek appointment was prepared in the year 1993 i.e., nine years ago. 7. In fairness to the parties it must be mentioned that according to the respondent Bank no fresh appointment has been made. What has been done is to give full pay to 27 employees who were already in the employment of the Bank on casual basis and were getting 1/3rd, 1/2 or 3/4 pay depending on the category of the Bank where they were working. They have merely been allowed full pay. Not being the case of fresh appointment, the very premise of the petitioners case would appear to be without foundation. 8. It was also submitted on behalf of the Bank that the petitioners are placed lower in the panel. They have merely been allowed full pay. Not being the case of fresh appointment, the very premise of the petitioners case would appear to be without foundation. 8. It was also submitted on behalf of the Bank that the petitioners are placed lower in the panel. Particulars of the placement of petitioners 1 and 2 were mentioned and it was stated that while petitioner no. 1 is placed at serial no. 26 petitioner no. 2 is at serial no. 92. In other words, according to the Bank having regard to their position in the panel they cannot make any grievance of their non-appointment. 9. In the above premises, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No. cost.