1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is asking for quashing the order of the Director, Art & Culture, Manipur, Govt. of Manipur being No. 7/1/96-AC, Imphal, the 30th August, 1997 for appointing the private respondent No. 4, Smt.Thokchom Victoria Devi, as Junior Lecturer (Sitar) of the Govt. Music College, Imphal. 2. The facts of the case of the petitioner in thumb nail are that the petitioner passed the XII Class Examination and she was continuing TDC 1st year in the year 1997-98. It is said that the petitioner adores classical instrument (Sitar) and could play excellently. She had stated to have represented the State of Manipur in the Inter Zonal Cultural Festival in a number of occasions organized by the Department of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism of the different states and even the Hon'ble Minister of State, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Youth Affairs and Sports also appreciated her for her participation during the 'Rashtriya Yuva Utsava' in the year 1995 and letter of appreciation was also issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India. It is also stated that the petitioner was awarded second position in the item of 'Sitar' in the First Inter College Youth Festival held in the month of September, 1995. 3. The petitioner also undergone a course for the instrument “Sitar” in the Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapith, Lucknow and passed the Visharad (Sitar) examination of Bhatkhande Sangeet Vidyapith, Lucknow held in the year 1994. One Shri L. Chaoba Sharma, who was working as Junior Lecturer (Sitar) in the Music College, Imphal was given promotion as Senior Lecturer of the College vide order dated 4.11.1996 as a result thereof a vacancy in the post of Junior Lecturer(Sitar) arose on 4.11.1996. To fill up the said post on regular basis, a notification dated 25.4.1997 was issued by the office of the Employment Officer, Imphal for calling applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to one post of Jr. Lecturer (Sitar). As per the said notification dated 25.4.1997, the maximum age of the candidate would be 35 years on the date of submission of the application/form, i.e. 25.5.1997. 4. In response to the said notification/advertisement dated 25.4.1997 for appointment to one post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar), the petitioner and the private respondent No. 4 filed their applications for appointment to the said one post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). 5. 4. In response to the said notification/advertisement dated 25.4.1997 for appointment to one post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar), the petitioner and the private respondent No. 4 filed their applications for appointment to the said one post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). 5. DPC for the Junior Lecturer (Sitar) was held on 30.5.1997. According to the petitioner, the expert member in the said DPC was one, Shri M. Kumar Singh, a Senior Lecturer (Sitar). It is also said that the petitioner had done very well in the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 but the private respondent 4 was recommended by the said DPC on extraneous consideration and also basing on no material for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). Further, on the recommendation of the said DPC, private respondent 4 was appointed as Junior Lecturer (Sitar) of the Government Music College, Imphal under the order of the Director, Art and Culture, Manipur being 7/1/96-AC, Imphal, the 30th August, 1997. Hence, this present writ petition. 6. In the present writ petition, the main thrusts for challenging the proceedings of the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 are that: (1) There was no expert committee in the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997 for recommending the private respondent 4; (2) The recommendation of the private respondent 4 by the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 was on extraneous consideration and based on no material; (3) There was no material to show that the comparative merits of the petitioner and the private respondent 4 were considered by the said DPC in its meeting held on 30.5.1997; and (4) The Private respondent 4 was over aged at the time of submission of her application for the said post of Jr. Lecturer (Sitar) on 25.5.1997 in response to the said advertisement/notification. 7. The private respondent 4 also had filed her affidavit-inopposition by denying the above grounds for challenging the impugned appointment order dated 30.8.1997 as well as the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997. In her affidavit-inopposition she had taken the plea that there was a notification issued by the Government of Manipur dated 1.6.1996 for relaxation of the age for direct recruitment in the vacancies under the Government of Manipur from 23.1.1992 to l8.2.1996 after lifting the ban on filling up vacancies and since the direct recruitment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) of the Govt. Music College was the first recruitment after the lifting of ban, the maximum age of the private respondent 4 was relaxed by 4(four)years in pursuance of the said notification dated 1.6.1996. 8. Many years had lapsed after the appointment of the private respondent 4 as Junior Lecturer (Sitar) of the Government Music College, Manipur under the impugned order dated 30.8.1997, as a result thereof many changes had taken placed while the present writ petition for challenging the impugned appointment order dated 30.8.1997 is pending. 9. Admittedly, while pending the present writ petition, the private respondent 4, Smt. Thokchom Victoria Devi, was further promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar) of Shri Shri Balmukunda Dev Music College, Imphal (Govt. Music College) on the recommendation of Class-III DPC meeting held on 5.11.2005 vide order of the Director, Art and Culture, Manipur being 7/1/2004-AC, Imphal, the 28th November, 2005 which reads as follows: “GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR DIRECTORATE OF ART AND CULTURE O R D E R S Imphal, the 28th Nov., 2005 No.7/1/2004-AC On the recommendation of the Class-III DPC meeting held on 5.11.2005 and as approved by the Government vide letter 10/15/96- S(AC) dated 23.11.2005, the following Junior Lecturers of Shri Shri Balmukunda Dev Music College, Imphal are temporarily appointed as Senior Lecturer (Vocal/sitar) of Shri Shri Balmukunda Dev Music College, Imphal, on promotion, in the scale of pay of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under Rules with immediate effect. Sl.No. Name of the Jr. Lecturer Post of the Sr. Lecturer 1. Shri L. Devendrajit Sharma, Promoted to Sr. Lecturer Junior Lecturer (Vocal) (Vocal) vice Shri L. Ibopishak Singh retired (Vide post creation Order 1/23/74/SE dated 16.12.1979. 2. Smt. Th. Victoria Devi Promoted to Senior Lecturer Junior Lecturer (Sitar) vice Shri L. Mangi Singh Expired (vide post creation Order 1/23/74/SE dated 16.12.1999) The expenditure involved is to be met from the relevant salary Head of the Shri Shri Balmukunda Dev Music College of the Department Budget. They will be on probation for a period of 2(two) years. Sd/-(Kh. Sarojini Devi) Director Art and Culture, Manipur.” 10. They will be on probation for a period of 2(two) years. Sd/-(Kh. Sarojini Devi) Director Art and Culture, Manipur.” 10. Because of the subsequent events of promoting the private respondent 4 even to the higher post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar) while her initial appointment as Junior Lecturer (Sitar) under the impugned order dated 30.8.1997 is a subject matter of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we may require to see the purpose of the powers in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the purpose of the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice not to thwart it even when justice is the by-product of erroneous interpretation of law, the High Court ought not to wipe out such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation -vrs - United, Labour Union & Ors, 1997 (2) Supreme 165 held that the arms of the court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Apex Court also in State of Maharastra -vrs - Digamber, (1995) 4 SCC 683 held that the power of the High Court to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable. 11. Because of the grounds, mentioned above, taken by the petitioner in challenging the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997, this court had directed the state respondents to produce the work sheet of the DPC proceeding held on 30.5.1997 for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) as well as proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997 and the promotion order of the private respondent 4 to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar) and also the correspondence between the Director and the Government regarding the appointment of expert in the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 vide order of this court dated 31.01.2006. In compliance of this court's order dated 31.1.2006, the learned Government Advocate placed the relevant government file stating that the documents available with the state government regarding the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 were in the file. In compliance of this court's order dated 31.1.2006, the learned Government Advocate placed the relevant government file stating that the documents available with the state government regarding the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 were in the file. In the course of hearing of the present writ petition, the said relevant file placed by the learned G.A. was perused but surprisingly there was no material such as work sheet of the DPC proceedings regarding the relative merit of the petitioner and the private respondent 4 and also other materials such as any 'gradation' or/ 'marks' awarded to the petitioner and the private respondent 4. The learned GA appearing for the government respondents fairly submitted that other than the materials available in the said file no other materials regarding the said proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.97 were available with the Government. 12. This court has very limited power of judicial review of the selection proceedings and the court only in exceptional circumstances, such as selection proceedings is vitiated by mala fide and/or arbitrariness or lack of procedural fairness or patent material irregularity in the proceedings of the selection committee can interfere with the selection proceedings. The Apex Court in Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & Ors - Vrs - Chanchellor, Allahabad University & Ors, (1980) 3 SCC 418 held that the proceedings of the selection committee should be fair in action and reasonableness in collecting decisional materials and also avoid arbitrariness. There is absolutely no material except the findings in the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997 that after due consideration of their performance in theory and practical test recommended the private respondent 4 and the present writ petitioner also has been recommended to keep in the penal for appointment to the probable vacant post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). From the perusal of the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.5.1997, it is clear that the writ petitioner is also recommended to keep in the panel for appointment to the probable vacant post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). 13. The assessment of the comparative merit of the candidates in the selection proceedings may be in any form either in 'Grade' or in 'Mark” or in any form inasmuch as the Court in exercise of the judicial power of review of the selection committee is not sitting as an appellate authority. 13. The assessment of the comparative merit of the candidates in the selection proceedings may be in any form either in 'Grade' or in 'Mark” or in any form inasmuch as the Court in exercise of the judicial power of review of the selection committee is not sitting as an appellate authority. But only to see as to whether there is procedural fairness in making the comparative merit of the candidates by the selection committee. Such being the limited power of judicial review of the High Court, this court is to see whether there is material or not in making the comparative merit of the candidates by the selection committee or whether there is a procedural fairness in making the comparative merit of the candidates and also whether the selection committee maintained the records for consideration of the comparative of the candidates. In this regard we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Atul Khullar and Ors.- Vrs- State of J&K & Ors: 1986(Supp) SCC 225 that a selection committee conducting the viva voce test should maintain the entire record, including the original worksheets on which the marks have been recorded by each member separately, for a minimum period of one year after the examination. Failure to do so can strengthen an allegation of mala fides against the Selection Committee. Para-20 of Atul Khullar -vrs - State of J & K (supra) reads as follows: “20. Then it is pointed out that notwithstanding the specific order made by this court on March 19, 1985 requiring the respondent State to produce the worksheets of the individual members of the Selection Committee prepared during the viva voce test no such document was placed before the Court amidst the voluminous records brought by the respondent into court. When this omission was pointed out during the hearing of these cases, learned counsel for the State Government and the Selection Committee informed us that the work-sheets had been destroyed after the marks had been recorded in the final roll and before our order was passed. We are not at all happy about that statement. The Selection Committee can be presumed to have known that the selection made for admission to the Medical College of Jammu and Kashmir would be challenged in court, even as they had year after year in the past. We are not at all happy about that statement. The Selection Committee can be presumed to have known that the selection made for admission to the Medical College of Jammu and Kashmir would be challenged in court, even as they had year after year in the past. Indeed some unsuccessful candidates had already filed writ petitions in the High Court assailing the selection shortly after the publication of the list of successful candidates. Common sense and reason required the Selection Committee to preserve the work-sheets on which they had recorded the marks awarded to individual candidates during the viva voce test. It is urged on behalf of the State Government and the Selection Committee that it was considered appropriate to destroy the work-sheets so that candidates would not know the particular marks awarded by the individual members of the Selection Committee. The plea is specious and weak and affords no excuse. The work-sheets should have been kept in a sealed cover for a period of time. As however the cassette tapes selected by learned counsel for the petitioners have been played before us, and we have found nothing there to throw doubt on the marks assigned to the particular candidate, we shall refrain in this case from drawing any adverse conclusion against the Selection Committee. We find it necessary, however, to emphasis that a Selection Committee conducting the viva voce test should maintain the entire record, including the original work-sheets on which the marks have been recorded by each member separately, for a minimum period of one year after the examination. Failure to do so can strengthen an allegation of mala fides against the Selection Committee.” In Pritpal Singh - Vrs - State of Haryana & Ors: (1994) 5 SCC 695, there was no proper maintenance of the records of the selection proceedings and answer papers were destroyed. The Apex Court in Pritpal Singh - vrs - State of Haryana (Supra) after observing that ordinarily the examiners would have themselves tabulated the marks given by them for the candidates, had set aside selection proceedings for the reasons mentioned in para nos.11,12 and 13 in Pritpal Singh(Supra) which read as follows: “11. As aforestated, the answer papers of the written examinations were destroyed even before the results of the selection had been declared. As aforestated, the answer papers of the written examinations were destroyed even before the results of the selection had been declared. The resolution which has been quoted above states that the Board had decided to destroy the answer papers as there was no space to keep them in the Board's office. There was a shortage of space because invitations for applications for various posts had been issued and space was badly needed for keeping the same. In reply to our query, the learned Solicitor General fairly stated that the resolution is its last sentence, which we have emphasized. So great was the haste to destroy the answer papers that the destruction was already complete when the resolution was passed. The shortage of space could not have been so acutely felt so suddenly and the explanation contained in the resolution does not explain or justly the tearing hurry. The explanation is, therefore, suspect. 12. The answer papers having been destroyed, it becomes impossible to ascertain what marks each candidate had secured from the examiners upon the answer papers themselves. Ordinarily, the examiners would have themselves tabulated the marks given by them against the serial numbers or names of the candidates whose answer papers they had examined. No such tabulation has been produced by the Board. There were four written papers. The Board would, in any even, have had to tabulate the marks obtained by each candidate in each of the four papers and aggregate the same for the purposes of ascertaining which of the candidates had obtained the qualifying marks or more. No such tabulation has been produced by the Board. The resolution of the Board authorizing payment to the examiners shows that there were 13 of them. There were four written papers. In each subject, therefore, there were more than one examiner and the answer papers of the candidates were distributed amongst them. Ordinarily, there would be a moderation of the marks given by two or more examiners in the same subject so as to ensure that one had not been too strict and other too lenient. No papers in this behalf have been produced by the Board. 13. Much paper pertaining to the physical statistics of the candidates declared to be successful as the written examination has been preserved by the Board and produced. No papers in this behalf have been produced by the Board. 13. Much paper pertaining to the physical statistics of the candidates declared to be successful as the written examination has been preserved by the Board and produced. That it has been preserved but no other documentation is noteworthy; a candidate's height would remain ascertainable so long as he was alive.” 14. This court, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, is of the considered view that non-maintenance of the records, work sheet, etc. for consideration of the relative merits of the candidates, i.e. writ petitioner and private respondent 4, by the DPC held on 30.5.1997 is a compelling factor for interference of the selection proceedings by exercising the power of judicial review of the selection proceedings to advance justice. 15. In the above/foregoing discussions and observations of this court, it is now required to see what proper relief could be granted in this writ petition. For sake of repetition, private respondent 4 had already been promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar) under the said order dated 28.11.2005 while the present writ petition is pending and admittedly the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 had also recommended the writ petitioner for keeping in the panel for appointment to the probable vacant post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). 16. The present writ petition is filed during the valid period of the panel prepared by the said DPC held on 30.5.1997 for recruitment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). The Apex Court in State of U.P. - Vrs - Ram Swarup Swamy: (2000) 3 SCC 699 held that the claim of the candidates including the panel, cannot be defeated because currency of the panel expires during the pendency of the litigation when the candidate had staked his claim during the currency of the panel. In Ajay Hasia & Ors - vrs - Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors: (1981) 1 SCC 722 (C/B) the selection of the candidate for admission in the Engineering College was challenged on the inter alia ground that the percentage of 33 1/3 of the total marks for the oral interview of the candidate was arbitrarily and unreasonably high and the period of interview for 2 or 3 minutes on average per candidate is too short and impossible to conduct the proper interview of the candidates in that case. The Apex Court in that case held that the marks allotted for the oral interview was excessively high and would affect the admission procedure with vice of arbitrariness. But the Supreme Court taking into consideration of the lapse of period of times and also in consideration of the materials that would cause immense hardship to the students, held that it would not be justified in setting aside the selection made for the academic year 1979-80 after the lapse of period of 18 months since the cancellation of the select list would cause immense hardship to those students. Similarly, the Apex Court in Mohender Sain Garg - vrs - State of Punjab & Ors.: (1991) 1 SCC 662 had not set aside the entire selection process of the candidates because of the immense hardship to be caused to the selected candidates who had already been appointed to the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector and served in that capacity for a long period but by moulding relief petitioners of the said writ petition challenging selection proceedings were also granted relief by giving one more chance for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector. Para-38 and 39 of Mohender Sain Garg - vrs - State of Punjab & Ors. (Supra) read as follows: “38. We have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of these cases. We have already taken the view that the selections already made cannot be set aside. Many candidates in the general category having secured lesser marks in the written examination in comparison to the above three petitioners namely Mohinder Sain Garg, Chiranji Lal Sharma and Balwinder Singh have been selected as Taxation Inspector/Excise Inspector. We do not consider proper in the interest of justice to cancel their appointments and to give a direction to hold fresh selection after reducing the percentage of marks in the viva voce test. No other candidate except the petitioners, having secured more marks in the written examination than some of those who have been selected in the general category are petitioners before us. In view of these circumstances we deem it proper to grant relief to these three petitioners. In Mohinder Sain Garg's case this Court on December 12, 1989 had given a direction that one post shall be kept vacant, to be given to the petitioner in the event of his success. In view of these circumstances we deem it proper to grant relief to these three petitioners. In Mohinder Sain Garg's case this Court on December 12, 1989 had given a direction that one post shall be kept vacant, to be given to the petitioner in the event of his success. In Chiranji Lal's case this court on January 15, 1990 had given the direction that in the meantime if further appointments are made by the respondents, one post should be left vacant to be made available to the petitioner in the event of his success. In Balwinder Singh's case also a similar order was passed on January 15, 1990. 39. As these appellants are succeeding in their appeals the respondents are now directed to appoint these appellants on the posts of Taxation Inspector/Excise Inspector as the case may be, if they are otherwise found suitable for these posts. It is further made clear that in case anyone of these appellants has become overage during this period, this would not be considered as a disqualification for their appointment to the above post. The respondents shall take suitable steps and pass appropriate orders for appointing these three petitioners within one month of the communication of this order.” 17. But in the present case in hand, admittedly, the writ petitioner was kept in panel for appointment to the probable vacant post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar). This court is of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice, the present writ petitioner shall be appointed in the present vacancy in the post of Junior Lecturer (Sitar) arises on the promotion of the private respondent 4, Smt. Thokchom Victoria Devi, to the post of Senior Lecturer (Sitar) under the said order of the Director dated 28.11.2005 and the respondents are directed accordingly. 18. To the extent mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.