JUDGMENT: Sengupta, J. 1. -THE aforesaid four appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order by which the Hon'ble First Court has been pleased to hear and dispose of eight writ petitions in which several persons were petitioners. All the writ petitions by the impugned common judgment and order, have been dismissed without granting any relied THE facts of all these cases are identical, therefore fact in issue and law both being identical, so it was convenient for the learned Trial Judge to dispose of by one judgment. After scrutinizing the writ petitions and the affidavit-in- oppositions filed to the respective writ petitions before the Hon'ble First Court it appears to us the learned Trial Judge has broadly recorded the facts accurately. However, in the Court of Appeal we need to state the fact briefly. 2. ALL the appellants/writ petitioners in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred in short 'Corporation') applied for being empanelled and or selected for appointment to the clerical posts in various branches and divisions of the respondent. The language of the advertisement issued by the respondents were having significant expressions as has been claimed by the writ petitioners/appellants. First, advertisement issued on 23rd November, 1993 by which all the Indian citizens irrespective of the caste and creed were invited to respond and therein it was specifically mentioned that those who would be empanelled will be appointed as and when regular post will be created. In the mean time, they would be appointed on temporary basis as and when it would be required for temporary appointment. Subsequently, it was clarified on 24th November, 1994 by a notification stipulating that in view of reservation policy for other backward classes some posts out of the posts already advertised would be reserved for other backward communities. 3. IT is not disputed by the appellants and each of them were empanelled. As such they were waiting for their turn to be called for joining to the said clerical post. 3. IT is not disputed by the appellants and each of them were empanelled. As such they were waiting for their turn to be called for joining to the said clerical post. A few of them however after having waited for a considerable time could not bear the delay hence they approached this Court by filing a writ petition in 2002 and result of hearing of the said writ petition did not yield result as the said writ petition was disposed of by only recording the representations on behalf of the respondents that their turn had not come. 4. THEREAFTER, immediately before filing of the instant writ petitions they came to know on 20th November, 2007 and 26th November, 2007, the panel prepared pursuant to the above advertisement has been cancelled and thereby their prospect of getting employment was absolutely shattered hence they filed writ petitions. It was discovered by the appellant-writ petitioners that a good number of empanelled candidates from the panel had got appointments before it was scrapped and they have joined in Patna division and various other stations. 5. SETTING out the aforesaid fact the writ petitioners and each of them contend in their respective writ petitions that the aforesaid action by way of cancellation of the panel is not only arbitrary and illegal but the same is discriminatory as well since some of the candidates have been picked up whereas appellants and each of them have been left out. Thus not only their constitutional right of equality has been denied but their legitimate expectation of getting appointment has also been frustrated. 6. IN response to the writ petition the respondent-Corporation has pleaded that the Chairman of the Corporation in exercise of power conferred under the Regulation has notified for administrative necessity that old panel would be cancelled and scrapped and the life span of the panel has been stipulated for a period of two years. The said Regulation has been framed under Section 49 of the Life INsurance Corporation of INdia. 7. IT is also contended on behalf of the respondents that mere empanelment does not create any indefeasible right much less legal or constitutional right. IT is a lawful decision of the Chairman with regard to the recruitment policy, the petitioners and each of them cannot have any right whatsoever. 8. 7. IT is also contended on behalf of the respondents that mere empanelment does not create any indefeasible right much less legal or constitutional right. IT is a lawful decision of the Chairman with regard to the recruitment policy, the petitioners and each of them cannot have any right whatsoever. 8. THE learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties and considering large number of authorities cited by both the sides came to the conclusion that the petitioner-appellants and each of them did not have any indefeasible right in the writ petition and did not accept the plea of discrimination and arbitrariness. 9. LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that from the record it would appear that the notification has been issued under the Regulation by the Chairman of the Corporation is illegal inasmuch as it cannot have any retrospective effect and it would at the most have effect for future. 10. HE contends that the appellants and each of them were admittedly empanelled long before issuance of the said notification so they have acquired in terms of the advertisement vested right to get employment as and when vacancy would be created and. indeed from the record it would appear the vacancies were created and as a result whereof some of the empanelled candidates were recruited. Therefore they contend this vested right cannot be taken away by the Chairman by the subsequent notification of cancellation. It is one of the worst case of adopting pick and choose policy. Moreover in the advertisement indefeasible promise was held out specifically to the candidates namely the appellant/respondents once they are empanelled they would be recruited, once the posts are created, and it is also established that the posts were created hence the Chairman as well as Corporation are estopped from cancelling this panel. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on all the decisions cited before learned Trial Judge which have been dealt with by the learned Trial Judge in extenso. Before us decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 1216 was cited to contend that this discriminatory action on the part of the respondents is not permissible and the same must be struck down. The appeal shall be allowed quashing impugned judgment and order. 11. MR. Before us decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 1216 was cited to contend that this discriminatory action on the part of the respondents is not permissible and the same must be struck down. The appeal shall be allowed quashing impugned judgment and order. 11. MR. Arijit Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent- Corporation as well as its officials submits that it is settled law the empanelment does not create any right not to speak of any vested right for enforcement before the Court of law. Empanelment of the candidates merely a first step for consideration of appointment. It would appear from the language of the said notification no promise was given that the selected candidates will be appointed rather it had been mentioned as and when the vacancies are created the appointment would be given. 12. HE submits to justify issuance of subsequent notification under the Regulation by the Chairman, that when Chairman has been vested with the power to issue a notification such power can be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. The empanelled candidates cannot have any right of employment as a matter of course. HE contends that this notification has to be issued to scrap the panel which could not be utilized for a long time because no need was felt for creation of post and as a result whereof large number of prospective young candidates have to be kept out of selection process. If this panel is kept valid for an indefinite period and so long it is not exhausted by appointment, the willing prospective candidates will not have any chance of getting employment in this statutory corporation. Therefore according to him the decision of cancelling the panel is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it has protected the right of equality to those candidates who are waiting for being considered by way of a fresh selection. 13. IN support of his contention he has relied on the following Supreme Court decisions (1985)1 SCC 122 , on the question of promissory estoppel. 14. (1997)4 SCC 283 : 1997 WBLR (SC) 261, on the point that merely because the candidate has been put in the waiting list he does not get any vested right to get any appointment. 15. IN support of his contention he has relied on the following Supreme Court decisions (1985)1 SCC 122 , on the question of promissory estoppel. 14. (1997)4 SCC 283 : 1997 WBLR (SC) 261, on the point that merely because the candidate has been put in the waiting list he does not get any vested right to get any appointment. 15. (1991)3 SCC 47 , on the proposition that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. 16. (2006)12 SCC 561 , on the point that in absence of any legal right the Court should not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus on the basis of sympathy. 17. (2010)7 SCC 678 , on the same point that no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list. 18. AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering their contentions the points for the decision of this Court is as follows. 19. WHETHER the learned Trial Judge has correctly concluded that the petitioners and each of them do not have any right to get employment, and logically the cancellation of the panel by the respondents by subsequent notification contrary to the terms of the advertisement is not lawful ? 20. IN order to answer the point formulated by us two basic points viz. whether it is a case of promissory estoppel, going by language of advertisement and further whether the principle of promissory estoppel would be applied in this case ? 21. WE need to examine the language of the advertisement whether it amounts to any promise. WE therefore set out the text of the language used in the advertisement both in September and November. The relevant portion of the language of the said advertisement dated 23rd November, 1993 is quoted hereunder : ".......................................................those who will be empanelled will be appointed as and when regular post will be created. In the mean time they will be appointed on temporary basis as and when it will be required for Temporary Appointment." 22. SUBSEQUENT advertisement on 24th November, 1993 the same language were used for OBC candidates also. 23. In the mean time they will be appointed on temporary basis as and when it will be required for Temporary Appointment." 22. SUBSEQUENT advertisement on 24th November, 1993 the same language were used for OBC candidates also. 23. THEREFORE, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that by the aforesaid language unconditional promise was given to recruit the empanelled candidates. From the advertisement it appears that the selection process was not undertaken for the existing vacancies it was for the future vacancies which are likely to be created. THEREFORE at the most when the vacancy would be created the petitioners right of getting employment would crystallize. 24. ALL the decisions have been cited by Mr. Chowdhury as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents in' general has laid down that the empanelled candidates cannot have any vested or indefeasible right. We do not need to discuss all the decisions cited before us as the recent decision of the Supreme Court in case of East Coast Railway and Anr. v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Ors. reported in (2010)7 SCC 678 the Supreme Court after considering all the decisions on this score in paragraph 16 has been held applying these principles to the case at hand, there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The list which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-in-aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner. 25. WE think the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991 )3 SCC 47 has laid down on the subject in paragraph 7 of the said report which we appropriately reproduced hereunder : "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up. the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted" (emphasis supplied by us). 26. IN view of reading of all the decisions of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Chowdhury and in particular reference to aforesaid paragraph of this Constitutional Bench judgment we find position of law as regard right of the . candidates in the select list is as follows : - (i) The candidates merely having place in the select list cannot have any indefeasible right to get appointment unless the terms of employment notice speaks otherwise, ' (ii) The respondents and each of them cannot have any un-chartered power to cancel selection process or panel unless there is a justifiable reason and in absence thereof the element of arbitrariness is to be presumed. IN the light of the above observation we examine this case on hand. The discrimination and arbitrariness has been illustrated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there were posts created in terms of the said advertisement notice as it will be found that some of the candidates from select list have been given appointment whereas appellants have been left out. IN our view it has not been argued nor it is a case that the candidates who have been given appointment out of the select list ignoring the seniority and merit position. Had it been a case of this nature obviously the appointment in favour of the some other candidates could have been questioned. 27. IN our view it has not been argued nor it is a case that the candidates who have been given appointment out of the select list ignoring the seniority and merit position. Had it been a case of this nature obviously the appointment in favour of the some other candidates could have been questioned. 27. WE have already observed the language mentioned in advertisement does not hold out the promise in any sense that once empanelled appointment are guaranteed it has been merely mentioned as and when the vacancy would be created the appointment will be made hence this promise at the most is a contingent one and this would have been vested one the vacancies have been created for all the candidates. No employer can be compelled to create vacancy by the Court and it is for the employer to create the vacancy or to fill up the vacancy according to its own need and.