JUDGMENT By this L.P.A. the Giridih Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to 'Bank' for short) has challenged final judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.2643 of 1992(R) by which the learned Single Judge has directed the Bank to regularise/ absorb the petitioners and to provide such benefits from the date they became eligible for the same and/or from the date persons below them in the panel were so regularised. However, entitlement of arrears and salary as a consequence of the regularization/absorption has not found favour by the learned single Judge. 2. In this L.P.A. an interim stay order was obtained by the appellant Bank on 24.01.2000. 3. The three respondents in this L.P.A. had filed the C.W.J.C. alleging that they were entitled to mandamus for their appointment on regular basis to the post of Messenger/Sepoy on which they were working on daily wage basis since 24.10.1988, 16.3.1988 and 6.6.1988 respectively. It was alleged that a panel had been prepared for such regularisation/absorption and it was approved on 22.1.1992. The panel contained the names of 41 candidates and persons below the names of the petitioners in that panel, who had been impleaded as respondents No.6 to 12 in that C.W.J.C., had been regularised. 4. The defence of the Bank in the counter affidavit was that the select list/panel was scrapped as it was not prepared in accordance with the guidelines dated 3.2.1990 issued by the sponsor bank i.e. Bank of India. 5. The learned Single Judge held that the guidelines issued by the Bank of India dated 3.2.1990 (Annexure5to the C.W.J.C.) did not bring about any such change as would entitle the Bank to scrap the select list/panel. It was found by the learned Single Judge that the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Bank of India dated 3.2.1990 merely reiterate NABARD's guidelines dated 7.5.1987. There is yet another guildeline issued by the NABARD dated 15.9.1987 according to which the panel had been prepared. 6. The Bank failed to appear at the hearing before the learned Single Judge and the case was decided exparteagainst the Bank. However, the Bank did not apply for setting aside of the exparte order by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance when the case was called on for hearing and accordingly that aspect need not be considered in this appeal. 7. The Bank failed to appear at the hearing before the learned Single Judge and the case was decided exparteagainst the Bank. However, the Bank did not apply for setting aside of the exparte order by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance when the case was called on for hearing and accordingly that aspect need not be considered in this appeal. 7. An attempt was made at the hearing of this appeal by the learned counsel for the Bank to show that on the basis of the record existing before the learned Single Judge by way of the counter and supplementary counter affidavit provided sufficient justification for scraping of the panel. 8. Unfortunately, it has not been demonstrated before us as to what major change was made by the guidelines of the Bank of India dated 3.2.1990 which could possibly provide a justification for scrapping the panel. The said guidelines dated 3.2.1990 do not show any major departure but on the contrary the guideline of the NABARD have been reiterated. No violation of the guidelines of the Bank of India dated 3.2.1990 or of the guidelines of the NABARD dated 7.5.1987 or the guideline of NABARD dated 15.9.1987 have been shown while preparing the select list/panel. 9. Two other documents have been filed by the Bank in this appeal which are dated 27.5.1991 (Annexure-2 to the appeal) and dated 16.7.1992 (Annexure-3 to the appeal) which were not on record before the learned Single Judge. 10. Although, strictly speaking, when the Bank did not apply for setting aside of the exparte order and did not file these documents before the learned Single Judge, they should not be permitted to rely upon the same in this appeal, yet we have examined these documents. The document dated 27.5.1991 (Annexure2 to the L.P.A.) is merely a record of certain deliberations between representatives of Bank of India, State Bank of India and Syndicate Bank held at New Delhi on 30.04.1991. This document does not contain any such binding guidelines which could be said to have been violated to an extent to vitiate the panel/select list. 11. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is a document dated 16.7.1992 which is subsequent to the confirmation of panel on 22.01.1992. This document is an agreement between workers' union and the Bank. This document does not contain any such binding guidelines which could be said to have been violated to an extent to vitiate the panel/select list. 11. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is a document dated 16.7.1992 which is subsequent to the confirmation of panel on 22.01.1992. This document is an agreement between workers' union and the Bank. The workmen before us were out of employment at that time and are therefore third parties in relation to this agreement. Thus this subsequent agreement cannot form a valid legal basis for scrapping the panel already prepared and confirmed unless there was some illegality in preparation of the panel. While empanelment for appointment or regularisation by itself may not give a vested right to appointment/regularization, but it does give rise to legitimate expectation of being considered for the appointment on the basis of that select list unless there is something found wrong with the selection. When vacancies exist and a select list has been properly and legally prepared for filling up those vacancies, it cannot be whimsically scrapped by the Bank unless the Bank is able to show that the selection was vitiated for any valid reason. 12. In these circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is vacated. The appellant Bank will comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, effective from the date directed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.