GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions are directed against a common order. They are taken up together for disposal. The respondents were empanelled consequent to the selection process started pursuant to a notice No. P-29e/recruit/88 dated 15th April, 1988 whereas they have been directed to be recruited as against the vacancies advertised vide employment Notice No. 1/03 dated 30th June, 2003. Aggrieved by this order, passed by the learned Tribunal, these writ petitions were filed by the Union of India. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: - By the notice dated 15th April, 1988, 330 vacancies in Group- d post in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 for printing department, eastern Railway, Calcutta/howrah under the control of Senior superintendent (Printing and Stationery, Calcutta) were advertised. The terms and conditions appearing in the employment notice dated 15th April, 1988 are, inter alia, as follows: "qualification: Minimum Educational Qualification passed Class VIM. Preference will be given to candidate passed ITI in Printing Technology and for candidates having higher qualification particularly in science stream. Physical Fitness: candidate must be in bodily good health. " ( 2 ) THE applicants for the post were called for viva voce and physical test which were conducted in the year 1989-90. The panel, however, was not published owing to an instruction from the General Manager, Eastern railways, by an order dated 16th September, 1991, to stop the recruitment process. Some of the aspirants for the posts including one Shri Prabir ballav moved the Central Administrartive Tribunal, inter alia, for a direction upon the authority to publish the panel. The application made by them, registered as Original Application No. 302/93, culminated in an order dated 16th September, 1996 whereby the learned Tribunal held that the authorities had revised the vacancy position from 330 to 370 and had also proceeded to appoint only the SC/st candidates without any justification. The Tribunal in the circumstances issued the following order: - "under the circumstances, the action of the respondents is clearly violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. We, therefore, quash the impugned letter of respondent No. 4 dated 30. 9. 92 (Annexure-E) and direct that the respondent authorities shall publish the integrated panel of both reserved and unreserved categories in the context of the originally notified vacancies. We, therefore, quash the impugned letter of respondent No. 4 dated 30. 9. 92 (Annexure-E) and direct that the respondent authorities shall publish the integrated panel of both reserved and unreserved categories in the context of the originally notified vacancies. The remaining SC/st candidates already empanelled, would be given appointment in order of merit as and when the ban of recruitment is lifted and for this no candidates will be considered as age barred, if meanwhile they have crossed the maximum age limit. Also as and when the empanelled candidates (both reserved and unreserved categories) join on actual appointment, their inter se seniority should normally be decided in order of merit irrespective of the date of their joining. However, the respondent authorities shall prepare the integrated seniority list by following due process of law and rules after giving notice to all concerned. As directed above, the integrated panel for both the reserved and unreserved category candidates shall be published within four months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. " ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the order dated 16th July, 1996 the panel was published on 15th April, 1997. No recruitment was, however, made from out of the aforesaid panel on the plea that there was in operation a ban on recruitment of Class-IV Group-D Khalasis. ( 4 ) THE Joint Director of Establishment by a letter dated 6th August, 2001 addressed to the General Manager, Eastern Railway, intimated that there was already surplus staff and the panel dated 15th April, 1997 need not be operated. By a further letter dated 9th November, 2004 the General manager, Eastern Railway appears to have been directed as follows: - "the matter has been considered by the Board. It is seen that there is no need for fresh induction of staff in Printing Press at kolkata due to technological upgradation and reduction in printing requirement due to computerization of ticketing system etc. Besides, indian Railways is also be set with the problem of absorption of compassionate ground appointees and redeployment of a large number of surplus staff. It has, therefore, been decided that there is no need for the operation of panel dated 15. 4. 97, the currency of which had expired long back. Besides, indian Railways is also be set with the problem of absorption of compassionate ground appointees and redeployment of a large number of surplus staff. It has, therefore, been decided that there is no need for the operation of panel dated 15. 4. 97, the currency of which had expired long back. " ( 5 ) IN the meantime Employment Notice No. 1/03 dated 28th June, 2003 for filling up post in Group-D category in the Eastern Railway, Calcutta for 1988 posts of Gangman/trackman and 48 posts of Khalasis/helper-ll in the pay scale of 2610-3540 and 2550-3200 respectively was published. The educational qualification required of the candidates was 8th standard passed and they were required to undergo a written examination and physical efficiency test. ( 6 ) THE respondents aggrieved by the omission on the part of the railways to recruit the selected candidates, appearing in the panel dated 15th April, 1997, applied before the learned Tribunal. These applications were registered as Original Application No. 1063, Original Application no. 1171 of 2003 and Original Application No. 822 of 2004. These three applications were disposed of by the order, under challenge, passed on 10th March, 2005 directing the Railways: - "to operate the panel dated 15. 04. 1997 (Annexure A/8 to OA no. 1063/2003) and proceed with recruitment of the candidates as per their merit position against the existing vacancies on Group "d" posts in Eastern Railway in accordance with rules. " ( 7 ) THE Union of India thereafter applied for review of the order dated 10th March, 2005 which was rejected by an order dated 30th June, 2005. ( 8 ) THE learned Tribunal has advanced the following reason in support of the aforesaid order: - " (a) Since the qualification prescribed for the vacant Group "d" posts, as per the notice dated 13. 06. 2003, indicates that only 8th standard pass is the requirement, which is also the requisite educational qualification for any other Group "d" posts, therefore, the plea recruitments are being made only against Group "d" posts on which the applicants cannot be fitted on the pretext of safety category is misconceived. Similar is the position regarding the ban. One side the respondents are resorting to fill up the Group "d" posts and other side the applicants are being denied their recruitment on the ground of ban. Similar is the position regarding the ban. One side the respondents are resorting to fill up the Group "d" posts and other side the applicants are being denied their recruitment on the ground of ban. The plea of the respondents is nothing but the plea of ipse dixit and therefore the same is only to be rejected. (b) We may also point out: that nothing prevented the respondents to employ the applicants against the Group "d" posts on which the fresh recruitment is being resorted to and for which they may be suitable and also possessing the requisite educational qualification. " ( 9 ) MR. Roychowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that the order under challenge is clearly illegal. Appointments pursuant to the Employment Notice No. 1/03 have to be made out of the candidates selected for that purpose and those vacancies cannot be filled up from out of the panel dated 15th April, 1997 prepared for a different purpose, altogether. He added that the panel dated 15th april, 1997 has also expired and the order under challenge is patently illegal and should be set aside. ( 10 ) MR. Kashikanta Moitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents made the following submissions: - (a) The order dated 16th July, 1996 has attained. finality and is binding upon the writ petitioner. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of Mohanlal v. Benoy Kishna mukherjee, reported in AIR 1953 SC 65 . He relied on Head Note D wherein the following view was expressed. "even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as 'res judicata' between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as 'res judicata'. A decision in the previous execution case between the parties that the matter was not within the competence of the executing Court even though erroneous is binding on the parties. " he also relied on the judgment in the case of the State of west Bengal v. Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharyay, reported in AIR 1966 sc 1061 . He relied on Paragraph- 14 wherein the following view was expressed. " he also relied on the judgment in the case of the State of west Bengal v. Hemanta Kumar Bhattacharyay, reported in AIR 1966 sc 1061 . He relied on Paragraph- 14 wherein the following view was expressed. "a wrong decision by a Court having jurisdiction is as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law provides. " next judgment relied upon by him for the same proposition is in the case of Authorised Officer v. M. M. Krishnamurthy Chetty, reported in 1998 (9) SCC 138 wherein Their Lordships in Paragraph- 2 expressed their mind as follows: - "it need not be pointed out that the order passed by the High court attained finality as it was not challenged before the Supreme court. The order passed by the High Court: directing the Authorised officer to examine the dispute in the light of the judgment of the high Court in the case Naganatha Ayyar v. Authorised Officer became final although the judgment on which the grievance had to be examined itself was reversed later by this Court. We find no fault with the reasoning of the High Court. It is well settled that even orders which may not be strictly legal become final and are binding between the parties if they are not challenged before the superior courts. " (b) His second submission was that once an order has become final it is not open to the parties to disregard the same. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of Madan Mohan pathak v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 803 wherein the following view was expressed. "as the judgment was allowed to become final and the appeal against it was not pressed, the judgment could not be disregarded or ignored. In any event, irrespective of whether the Act was constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation was bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High court, and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1st April to 31st march, 1976 to Class-Ill and Class-IV employees. " (c) His third submission is that expiry of the panel during the pendency of litigation is of no significance. " (c) His third submission is that expiry of the panel during the pendency of litigation is of no significance. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the panel dated 15th april. 1997 has expired is wholly without any merit. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of State of U. P. v. Ram Swarup Saro. reported in 2003 (3) SCC 699 wherein the following view was expressed. "we find that the select list was finalised in the month of november 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997,. e. , before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely, because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. " (d) His fourth submission is that the fact that under the notice of 2003 candidates were required to undergo a written test which was not there in the earlier notice of 1988, according to him, is not a matter of great significance because in both the cases required educational qualification of the candidates is 8th standard. The difference in the pay scale is due to revision of pay scale as a whole. Therefore, the candidates already empanelled cannot be deprived on the basis of classification which is not reasonable. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1986 SCC (Lands) 49 wherein it was held that "the burden of establishing the reasonableness of a classification and its nexus with the object of the legislation is on the State. " (e) His fifth submission was that when the candidates were duly selected and empanelled expiry of the panel is no execuse for not appointing candidates. He in support of his submission relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999 (10) Supreme 474 . (f) He argued that even assuming that the candidates empanelled in the list dated 15th April, 1997 cannot for lack of vacancies in the printing press be appointed, the Court is not powerless to raise an equity and to direct operation of the panel for filling up the vacancies which have subsequently arisen. (f) He argued that even assuming that the candidates empanelled in the list dated 15th April, 1997 cannot for lack of vacancies in the printing press be appointed, the Court is not powerless to raise an equity and to direct operation of the panel for filling up the vacancies which have subsequently arisen. In support of his submission he relied on a judgment in the case of Century spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. The Ulhasnagar municipal Council, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1021 . "a representation of an existing fact must be distinguished from a representation that something will be done in future. The former may, if it amounts to a representation as to some fact alleged at the time to be actually in existence, raise an estoppel, if. another person alters his position relying upon that representation. A representation that something will be done in future may involve an existing intention to act in future in the manner represented. If the representation is acted upon by another person it may, unless the statute governing the person making the representation provides otherwise, result in an agreement enforceable at law; if the statute requires that the agreement shall be in a certain form, no contract may result from the representation and acting therefor but the law is not powerless to raise in appropriate cases an equity against him to compel performance of the obligation arising out of his representation. " (g) Lastly, he submitted that the learned Tribunal has really moulded relief regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case. If this Court was not inclined to allow the order under challenge to remain, this Court should pass an appropriate order which would subserve the purpose of justice and shall also fulfil the legitimate expectation entertained by the respondents for all these years arising out of the fact that they had duly been selected and were empanelled coupled with the mandate contained in the order of the Tribunal passed on 16th July, 1996 directing the writ petitioner herein to recruit the candidates after the ban on recruitment was lifted. He submitted that the authorities cannot be permitted to negate a judicial order by continuing the ban for an inordinately long period. ( 11 ) WE have considered the submission of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have the fullest sympathy with the respondents. He submitted that the authorities cannot be permitted to negate a judicial order by continuing the ban for an inordinately long period. ( 11 ) WE have considered the submission of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. We have the fullest sympathy with the respondents. We accept the submission of Mr. Moitra on principle that the order dated 16th July, 1996 has become final and the authorities are bound by the same. But, we are unable to sustain the order under challenge passed by the learned Tribunal for the following reasons. (I) The prescribed qualification, under the notices of the year 1988 and 2003, is not the same. Under the notice dated 1988 the candidates were not required to undergo any written or physical examination which is required under the notice of 2003. It is nobody's case that any vacancy in the Group-D category has arisen in the printing department which was the subject-matter of the notice dated 15th April,1988. Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the writ petitioner had resorted to filling up the Group-D posts on the one hand and the respondents were denied recruitment on the plea of ban on the other. The ban insofar as the same is applicable to recruitment for the printing department continues to be there for which plausible reasons has been advanced. (II) The view expressed by the learned Tribunal that the writ petitioner could have employed the respondents against the Group- d posts, for which fresh recruitment process has been undertaken in our view, cannot be justified by law or authority. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of Nagar Mahapalika v. Vinod Kumar, reported in AIR 1987 SC 847 wherein it was held that: "when a fresh list had been prepared appointments could not be made from a list prepared earlier. " ( 12 ) IN the case of State of U. P. v. Rafiquddin and Ors. , reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 401 the following view was expressed: - "if selected candidates are available for appointment on the basis of the competitive examinations of subsequent years, it would be unreasonable and unjust to revise the list of earlier examination by changing norms to fill up the vacancies as that would adversely affect the right of those selected at the subsequent examination is matters relating to their seniority under Rule 22. The 1970 examination could not be utilised as a perennial source or inexhaustible reservoir for making appointments indefinitely. The result of a particular examination must come to an end at some point of time, like a "dead ball" in cricket. It could not be kept alive for years to come for making appointments. The practice of revising the list prepared by the Commission under Rule 19 at the behest of the Government by lowering down the standards and norms fixed by the Commission to enable appointment of unsuccessful candidates is subversive of rule of law. This practice Is fraught with dangers of favouritism and nepotism and it would open back door entry to the service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that once the result of the subsequent examination of 1972 was declared, the commission could not revise the list of approved candidates of 1970 examination prepared by it under Rule 19 at the behest of the government by lowering down the standard fixed by it. " ( 13 ) IN the case of S. Bhattacharyay v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1997 (4) SCC 283 the following view was expressed: - - "for subsequent vacancies, everyone in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. " ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the order under challenge passed on 10th March, 2005 and the order dismissing the application for review on 30th June, 2005 cannot be sustained and are, therefore, set aside. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where hostile discrimination made by the authority between the candidates of reserved category and unreserved category is writ large, the writ petitioners, without in any manner derogating from the order dated 16th September, 1996, are directed to allow the respondents to participate in the selection process for the vacancies which may hereafter be advertised within a period of 3 years from date and for that purpose age of the candidates would not be a bar. Parties shall bear that own cost. .