JUDGMENT In this writ application, petitioner challenged the order as contained in Annexure-8, whereby representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. It is stated that respondent no. 5 requisitioned names of eligible Class-IV employees for their appointment to Class-III Grade. Petitioners also appeared in the written test as well as in the interview. Thereafter, it is further stated that respondents did not declare the result of the said examination. Constrain with the same petitioners filed representation for publication of result. It is stated that when the respondent did not publish result even on the representation of petitioners, they filed writ application in this Court vide WPS No. 5403 of 2011, which was disposed of by Annexure-7 with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation within four weeks from the date of production of order. It is stated that thereafter the representation of petitioner rejected by Annexure-8. 3. It is submitted by Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners were included in the panel prepared by the respondent on the basis of examination/test held in the year 2010 but the respondents cancelled the said panel without publishing it on the ground that the said panel had lost its force due to efflux of time. He submits that since the panel never published, therefore, it cannot be canceled on the plea that it lost its force due to lapse of time. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Sri Prashnat Kumar Singh, G.P. VI submits that the said panel was canceled because it was prepared against the circular issued by the State Government which manifest from impugned order itself. It is submitted that as per the government circular, only 15% post of Class III Grade can be filled up by promotion from Class IV Grade, but in the instant case limited examination taken to fill up 50% posts from Class IV employee. He further submits that in the instant case even roster clearance not obtained before holding limited examination. Thus, to rectify the aforesaid defect, the said panel canceled. It is submitted that the State Government have all right to rectify its mistake. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. He further submits that in the instant case even roster clearance not obtained before holding limited examination. Thus, to rectify the aforesaid defect, the said panel canceled. It is submitted that the State Government have all right to rectify its mistake. 5. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Even assuming that names of petitioners find place in the panel, same will not give any legal right to the petitioner to be appointed/promoted on Class-III post. It is open for the State Government to cancel the panel for valid reason. From perusal of impugned orders, I find that the panel canceled because the circular of Personnel Department as contained in Letter No. 1749 dated 27.3.2010 has not been followed. According to aforesaid circular only 15% posts of Class-III Grade can be filled up from Class-IV employee after holding limited examination. In the instant case, admittedly concerned authority took step to fill up 50% post of Class-III Grade from Class-IV employee, which is against the circular of the State Government. It also appears from the impugned order that authority even did not obtain roster clearance from competent authority. Thus, I find that the State Government has got valid reason for cancellation of panel. 6. Under the said circumstances, I find no merit in this case. Accordingly, writ application is dismissed. 7. However, if in future, the vacancy is notified, it is open for the petitioners to apply for the said post and their cases will be considered by the respondent authority without being prejudiced with the fact that petitioners moved this Court.