TARUN CHATTERJEE, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30. 7. 1999, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33807 of 1994. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of this special appeal are that Nanak Chand Adarsh Inter College, chandausi, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as "the institution") is a recognized institution, where education is imparted up to the level of Intermediate. The institution receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. Thus, the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, U. P. Secondary Education (Services and Selection Board) Act, 1982 and U. P. High Schools intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, would be applicable to this institution. On attaining the age of superannuation by the Principal of this institution, a substantive vacancy in the post of Principal arose which was duly intimated to the u. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission" ). The Commission advertised the said post. After holding selection, the Commission recommended the name of one Satya Pal Singh, who is respondent No. 2, in this appeal at Serial no. 1 and name of Rajendra Pal Gupta, writ petitioner-respondent No. 3 (in this appeal), at Serial no. 2. The selected candidate Satya Pal Singh joined his duty as Principal of the institution on 7th December, 1988 and continued to function as such till 30th June, 1989. From 1st July, 1989 up to 23rd of January, 1994, Satya Pal Singh did not join the institution and on that day by a resolution, the Committee of Management, terminated the services of Satya Pal Singh and papers relating to his termination were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 14th February, 1994. After the termination of the Services of Satya Pal Singh, the writ application was filed by rajendra Pal Gupta, who is respondent No. 3, in this appeal for a direction upon the appellants to issue appointment order in his favour allowing him to join as Principal of the institution and for other incidental reliefs. After the termination of the Services of Satya Pal Singh, the writ application was filed by rajendra Pal Gupta, who is respondent No. 3, in this appeal for a direction upon the appellants to issue appointment order in his favour allowing him to join as Principal of the institution and for other incidental reliefs. ( 3 ) THIS writ application was disposed of by the learned Judge of this Court by holding that since, the vacancy of Principal arose within a period of one year, the second person in the panel, namely Rajendra Pal Gupta, would be entitled to be appointed by the appellant Committee of management. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by this order, the present special appeal has been preferred at the instance of committee of Management, Nanak Chand Adarsh Inter College. Chandausi, Moradabad and one puran Chand Upadhyay, officiating Principal of the institution. ( 5 ) BEFORE us, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in view of rule 7 (2) of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") life of the panel prepared under Rule 7 (1) of the Rules shall remain alive for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission and therefore, in view of the fact, that the life of the panel had already exhausted, question of appointing, the writ petitioner- respondent No. 3, Rajendra Pal Gupta, from the said panel, life whereof had already stood expired, cannot arise, at all. In support of this contention the learned Counsel for the appellants had drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. and Anr. v. Harish Chandra and Ors. , 1996 (9) SCC 309 . ( 6 ) THE submission so made by the learned Counsel for the appellants was disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3, the life of the panel did not exhaust, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 could be appointed within one year from the date of termination of the services of Satya Pal Singh accordingly, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, submitted that the appeal must be dismissed. ( 7 ) THIS is the only question, which is to be decided by us in this appeal. ( 7 ) THIS is the only question, which is to be decided by us in this appeal. ( 8 ) BEFORE taking up the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we may refer to Rule 7 of the Rules, which runs as follows : "7. Preparation of panel.- (1) The Commission shall prepare an institution-wise panel of those found most suitable for appointment and arrange, them in order of merit, inter alia mentioning (i) the name of the institution and where it is situate; (ii) the subject in which vacancy existed and selection made; (iii) names of selected persons in order of merit and with due regard to their preference for appointment in a particular institution. (2) The panel, prepared under Sub-rule (1), shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. " ( 9 ) IN this connection reference of Rule 8 of the said Rules, may also be made which is extracted herein below :" 8. Notification of selected candidate.- (1) The Commission shall forward the panel, referred to in rule 7, in quadruplicate, to the Deputy Director and shall also notify, the same on its notice board and publish, it in such other manner as it may consider proper. (2) Within 15 days of the receipt of the panel by him, the Deputy Director shall notify, it on the notice board and send to copies thereof to the Inspector. (2) Within 15 days of the receipt of the panel by him, the Deputy Director shall notify, it on the notice board and send to copies thereof to the Inspector. (3) Within 10 days of the receipt of the panel by him, the Inspector shall (i) notify it on the notice-board; (ii) intimate the name of selected candidates, standing first in order of merit, and, where there are more than one vacancies, as many names in order of merit as there are vacancies, to the Manager of the concerned institution with directions that, no authorization under resolution of the management, an order of appointment, in the proforma given in Appendix b be issued to the candidate by registered post, within one month of the receipt of intimation, requiring him to join duty within 10 days of the receipt of the order or within such extended time, as may be allowed to him by the Management, and also intimating him that, on his failure to join within the specified time, his appointment will be liable to be cancelled; (iii) send an intimation to the candidate, referred to in clause (ii), with directions to report to the manager within 10 days of the receipt of the order of appointment by him from the Manager or within such extended time, as may be allowed to him, by the Management. (4) The Manager shall comply with the directions given under Sub-rule (3), and report compliance to the Commission through, the Inspector. (5) When the candidate referred to in Sub-rule (3) fails to join the post within the time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf or where such candidate is not available for appointment, the Inspector may, on the request of the management, send fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel, under intimation to the Deputy Director and the Commission, and the provisions of sub-Rules (3) and (4) shall mutatis mutandis apply. " ( 10 ) FROM a plain reading of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, it is clear to us that the panel prepared under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. " ( 10 ) FROM a plain reading of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, it is clear to us that the panel prepared under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Rules shall hold good for one year from the date of its notification by the Commission. In this case, as noted herein earlier, learned Counsel for the private respondent submitted before us that the life of the panel could not exhaust as the private respondent was entitled to be appointed from the same panel within one year from the date of termination of services of Satya Pal Singh. We are, unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the private respondent. ( 11 ) FROM a plain reading of Rule 8 (1) to Rule 8 (4) of the said Rules, which deals with notification of selected candidates, we are of the view that in view of the admitted fact that from the same panel Satya Pal Singh, who was at Serial No. 1, was in fact, appointed and worked with the College for about 6 months and thereafter went on leave till the year 1994, the question of remaining alive of the panel could not arise. As noted herein earlier, Rule 8 of the Rules, clearly postulates as to what would be the date of notification by the Commission. For this reason, we have carefully examined Rule 8 of the Rules to find out the period of one year from the date of notification by the Commission. In our view, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the panel could be said to remain alive up to the date of termination of services of Satya Pal Singh. Admittedly, Satya Pal Singh joined the College on 7th December, 1988, and thereafter remained on leave till the year 1994, when his Services were terminated. It can only be said that at best the life of the panel could servive up to the time prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules. Admittedly, Satya Pal Singh joined the College on 7th December, 1988, and thereafter remained on leave till the year 1994, when his Services were terminated. It can only be said that at best the life of the panel could servive up to the time prescribed in Rule 8 of the Rules. In any view of the matter, the question of panel to remain alive, in the facts of this case, cannot arise at all as we find that from the same panel, Satya Pal Singh, who was figuring at the top of the panel, was appointed and he joined the service in the College and continued about 6 months and thereafter went on leave till his service was terminated in the year 1994. Therefore, in our view, the life of the panel came to an end as soon as Satya Pal Singh had joined the service and continued without break for about 6 months or at best till the time fixed in Rule 8 of the Rules. The period fixed in Rule 8, in our view has already expired and, therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinabove, we are unable to accept the contention of the private respondent that the life of the panel could survive up to the date of termination of the service of Satya Pal Singh, as he was on leave up to that date. ( 12 ) THERE is another aspect of this matter. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules, clearly lays down that when a candidate "fails to join the post" within the time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the management may allow in this behalf or where such candidate is not available for appointment, "the Inspector may" on the request of the management, send fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel under intimation to the Deputy Director and the Commission, and the provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (4) shall mutatis mutandis apply. ( 13 ) IF we carefully examine Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules as mentioned above, it would be clear that the question of sending the name of the candidate standing next in order of merit on the panel would arise only when the candidate referred to in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules, "toils to join" the post within the time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the management allows in this behalf or where such candidate is not available for appointment. Therefore, from a plain reading of this provision, it is clear that when a candidate fails to join the post within time allowed in the letter of appointment or within such extended time as the management allowed, in this behalf or such candidate is not available for the appointment, only then the question of sending the name of next candidate, in the panel would arise. So, far as the present case is concerned, we are of the view that on a close scrutiny of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules, the three eventualities had not, at all, occurred because in the present case Satya Pal Singh joined the post of Principal of the institution and worked more than six months and thereafter left the College initially taking leave and finally his services were terminated by a resolution Therefore, in the present case, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules cannot apply and the writ petitioner-private respondent could not pray for sending his name for appointment as Principal of the Institution as he stood next in order of merit in the panel after Satya Pal Singh. In our view. Rule 8 (5) of the Rules, cannot be said to be a mandatory provision. We find that Sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 of the Rules, clearly says that the Inspector on the request of the Management "may" send fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel. Therefore, it is clear from this provision that at the discretion of the Inspector, it is open to him to send fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel for appointment only on the request of the management. Therefore, it is clear from this provision that at the discretion of the Inspector, it is open to him to send fresh name or names standing next in order of merit on the panel for appointment only on the request of the management. If this position is accepted the question of appointment as of right to the private respondent could not at all arise as the inspector did not send his name on the ground that he was standing next in order of merit on the panel nor there was any request from the management of the institution for sending the name of next candidate standing in order of merit in the panel. ( 14 ) BEFORE we part with this judgment, we may deal with a decision cited by the learned Counsel for the private respondent rendered in Nagar Palika Inter College, Jaunpur v. Dr. Havildar Singh and Ors. , (1996) 1 UPLBEC 271 . We have carefully examined the decision cited at the Bar as well as the relevant provisions, namely, Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Rules, as quoted hereinearlier. In our view, the aforesaid decision cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents, in this behalf, cannot be said to have any application to the facts and circumstances of this case, as in that decision, the candidate did not at all join the post and therefore, it was open for the next man to come in the field of eligibility in view of Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 8 of the Rules. As we have discussed already, in the present case, on the other hand, Satya Pal Singh, admittedly joined the institution as Principal and worked for about 6 months, in the said institution. Therefore, the decision cited on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 3 is not, at all, applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ( 15 ) NO other point was raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 16 ) IN view of our discussions made above, it is not necessary for us to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above, in our view, is also of no help to the appellant. ( 16 ) IN view of our discussions made above, it is not necessary for us to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent. However, the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above, in our view, is also of no help to the appellant. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this special appeal deserves to be allowed, the order of the learned judge, under appeal, is liable to be set aside and we hold that the private respondent is not entitled to be appointed as Principal of the institution from the said panel. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the special appeal is allowed. The impugned order, under appeal, is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. .