A. K. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) ON January 1, 1988 the respondent No. 1 published an advertisement in newspaper inviting applications for the post of Assistant Grade - 2 (Cashier ). In the advertisement it was specifically provided that there were four vacancies. The writ petitioners applied for the said post and they were successful in getting themselves enlisted provisionally for employment. The authority prepared a list of 60 candidates. The position of the writ petitioners were as follows: Petitioner No. Serial No. 1 37 2 3 4 32 25 60 ( 2 ) GENERALLY, the provisional list is prepared by taking successful candidates in order of merit one and half times of the available vacancies. According to the respondents, in course of selection process there had been sixteen more vacancies available and as such they gave employment to twenty candidates in order of merit. The last of such candidates being serial No. 20 was given employment on August 1, 1991 after receipt of the police verification report. However, the respondent selected twentieth candidate for appointment on March 27/april 1, 1991. The selection process was concluded on July 4, 1989 when the panel was prepared by the Additional Chief Account Officer after completion of all the formalities. The panel was kept alive for one year as per the rules. However, the life of the panel was extended for further a period of one year by two extension of six months each. The petitioners could not be accommodated as according to the respondents there was no vacancy available for them within the period when the panel was kept alive. The corporation by a memo dated December 24, 1992, informed all concerned that since the pamel was valid for one year and it was extended for another year no further extension was possible in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of india, reported in AIR 1948 SC 1931. The corporation also observed in the said memorandum that the panel would be valid till all the existing vacancies advertised or existing at the time of advertisement were filled up and it should consist such number of candidates as would be sufficient to fill up the notified/existing vacancies. The said 5 21 memorandum was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing a writ petition being C. O. No. 20636 (W) of 1995. The said 5 21 memorandum was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing a writ petition being C. O. No. 20636 (W) of 1995. During the pendency of the said writ petition on October 31, 2002 the respondent published an advertisement in a newspaper for filing up the post of Assistant Grade- 2 (Cashier ). The writ petition came up for hearing before Girish chandra when His Lordship disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated February 17, 2004 by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the self same cause of action as in between the subsequent development had taken place. Hence, this writ petition. ( 3 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners that once the vacancy was notified as four there was no occasion for the respondent corporation to prepare a list of sixty candidates and give appointments upto twentieth candidate for the said post. This gave a legitimate expectation to the writ petitioners especially the petitioner 3 and 5 who were placed in the panel as serial Nos. 25 and 21 respectively and there was no occasion for the respondent corporation to go for an independent recruitment process afresh without having the said panel exhausted. It was also contended that since they extended the life of the panel twice by giving six months extension e:ach there was no occasion for the corporation to ignore the petitioners; for being absorbed in the post which fell vacant subsequently by giving suitable extension to the said panel. ( 4 ) THE respondent produced xerox copies of the records which were taken on record. On perusal of the note sheets it appears to me that even on the day when the selection process was concluded twenty vacancies were not available to them. Had it been so they could have contemporaneously completed the process of recruitment. They kept the panel alive for two years to accommodate twenty candidates. If the authorities were so particular about the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Prakash (supra) they should not have prepared a panel of sixty candidates giving legitimate expectation to them that they would be absorbed in due course. I do not find any logic as to how they could take care of subsequent sixteen vacancies which occurred according to them during the selection process. I do not find any logic as to how they could take care of subsequent sixteen vacancies which occurred according to them during the selection process. Such action on their part was totally contrary to the guidelines framed by the office memorandum dated December 24, 1992. The candidates were also not informed that the authority would fill up twenty vacancies instead of four vacancies through a recruitment process as per original advertisement published on January 1, 1988. On perusal of the note sheets it appears to me that this might have been done to accommodate the candidates upto serial number twenty. If such procedure was adopted, why not serial No. twenty one or twenty five? This question could not be effectively answered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation. ( 5 ) FOLLOWING three Apex Court decisions was relied upon: (1) 1995, Volume III, Supreme Court Cases, page 486 (Modem Lal and ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.) (2) 1999, Volume V, Supreme Court Cases, page 180 (Union Public service Commission v. Gaurav Dwiuedi and Ors.) (3) All India Reporter, 2003, Supreme Court Case, page 3103 (Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Ors.) (1) 1995, Volume III, Supreme Court Cases, page 486 (Modem Lal and ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir-and Ors.) : Paragraph 23, 24 and 27 of this Judgment were relied on. In paragraph 23 the Apex Court observed that even if requisition was made for 11 posts the Public Service commission might send merit list of suitable candidates exceeding 11. That by itself may not be bad but at the time of giving actual appointments the merit list had to be so operated that only 11 vacancies were filled up and the candidates in the merit list from serial no. 12 could only be treated as wait listed candidates in order of merit to fill only those 11 vacancies for which recruitment had been made. This observation would clearly show that the corporation did not follow the well settled principles of law as decided by the Apex Court. 12 could only be treated as wait listed candidates in order of merit to fill only those 11 vacancies for which recruitment had been made. This observation would clearly show that the corporation did not follow the well settled principles of law as decided by the Apex Court. Moreover, in paragraph 27 of this Judgment it was categorically made clear that when the requisition is for 11 posts and even though the commission might have sent list of 20 selected candidates appointments could be given only in 11 posts and "not beyond 11 posts", (2) 1999, Volume V, Supreme Court Cases, page 180 (Union Public service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors.) : Paragraph 6 of this judgment was relied upon. Here the Apex Court observed that under rule 3 of the Civil Service Examination Rules. 1998 the number of vacancies to be filled up was to be specified in the notice. Number of vacancies specified in the notice was an approximate number which was subject to change and the Apex Court observed that it was not necessary or incumbent upon the Government to fill up all the vacancies notified therein. In the said case the vacancies were notified for 740 and the appointment was given to 470 after determining the number of vacancies. In the instant case, the vacancy was declared as 4 and appointments were given to 20 candidates. This decision, in my view, has no application in the instant case. (3) All India Reporter, 2003, Supreme Court Case, page 3103 (Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank- Ltd. v. Amrik Singh and Ors. ]: paragraph 8 of this Judgment was relied upon. The Apex Court while considering the facts and circumstances in the said case relating to a selection process came to finding that the whole process appeared to have been not only perfunctory but really a farce of selection vitiated by award of indiscriminate marks to boost up candidates of choice and unreasonably put down others in utter disregard and derogation of the binding guidelines. ( 6 ) IN course of hearing it was submitted from the bar that serial No. 45 was also given appointment. However, no particulars could be produced nor the respondent corporation was given opportunity to confront such statement made on behalf of the petitioners. Hence I do not take notice of it. ( 6 ) IN course of hearing it was submitted from the bar that serial No. 45 was also given appointment. However, no particulars could be produced nor the respondent corporation was given opportunity to confront such statement made on behalf of the petitioners. Hence I do not take notice of it. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the Apex Court decision and the law decided therein and applying the same in this case it appears to me that the entire selection process was vitiated by illegality. An attempt was made on behalf of the respondents to resist the writ petition on the ground of delay. The selection process was had in 1988-89. The appointments were given upto 1991. The panel was kept alive till 1992. The writ petitioners thereafter made representations which were not considered and ultimately they approached this Court: in 1995. 1995 writ petition came up for hearing in 2004 when His Londship found that because of subsequent development a comprehensive writ petition should be filed and granted such liberty which resulted in the present writ petition filed in 2004. In this back drop if I deny relief to the petitioners merely on the ground of delay it would be a grave injustice caused to them particularly, when I am convinced that the entire process of recruitment was vitiated by illegality and irregularity. ( 8 ) THE corporation realised their own mistake and as they issued the subsequent memorandum dated December 24, 1992. However, by this time the appointments were given keeping the panel alive until 20th candidate was absorbed. By this time the writ petitioners must have crossed the eligibility of age. They cannot seek employment elsewhere because of their disability being over aged. ( 9 ) EVEN after holding that the entire selection process was vitiated by irregularity and illegality it would not be wise for me to cancel the entire selection process at this stage especially when those 20 candidates are not before me and they are serving corporation having no fault on their part. Hence, I do not wish to cancel the selection process and given alternate relief to the writ petitioners. ( 10 ) ON the question of relief I feel that at least 21st and 25th candidates being petitioner No. 5 and 3 respectively must be absorbed in the vacancies which are available to them or might be available in near future. Hence, I do not wish to cancel the selection process and given alternate relief to the writ petitioners. ( 10 ) ON the question of relief I feel that at least 21st and 25th candidates being petitioner No. 5 and 3 respectively must be absorbed in the vacancies which are available to them or might be available in near future. The other writ petitioners would also be entitled to apply in selection process whenever it is held in the near future and if they apply in the next recruitment process for the same post they must be allowed to participate in such selection process ignoring their age disability. Writ petition is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. Writ petition disposed of