Judgment : The controversy involved in this writ petition relates to appointment of an Urdu Teacher for which Regional School Service Commission, Southern Region, published a notification for preparation of a panel after holding test and interview. Admitted position is that the vacancies arose on 1st October, 1999. Since 1st October, 1999, no steps was taken by any of the respondent authorities to notify the vacancy for selection. 2. It appears from proforma for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Teacher: the Headmistress of C.M.O. Girls' High School, 11 Puter Lane, Kolkata - 700 073 filled up the proforma on 17th September, 2003. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata, sent a memo bearing Memo No. 1751/M dated 26th October, 2004, to the Chairman. The Chairman, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, for filling up vacancy of the said school. In that memo the concerned D.I. requested to sponsor name of the candidates for filling up vacancy in the said school at an early date in accordance with the information mentioned. 3. It appears from the annexure 'P-5' of the writ petition that West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, issued a notice on 14th December, 2002 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for holding Regional Level Selection Test 2002 for preparing panel of Assistant Teachers in recognized Non-Government aided Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools/Madrasahs in West Bengal as per State Government Rules and procedures against the "vacancies available and likely to occur". Again a note was inserted at the bottom of that notice published in the newspaper that "RLST test for selection and preparation of panel will be made for different subjects for available vacancies and vacancies likely to occur in Schools and Madrasahs with medium in different regions as mentioned below". It is also undisputed that on the basis of such publication, applications were made and a panel of two candidates was prepared on 5th November, 2003, which remained valid till 6th November, 2004. The writ petitioner was placed second in the panel prepared by the West Bengal Regional School Service 'Commission, Southern Zone. So far as the first empanelled candidate was concerned appointment was given but the second candidate/the writ petitioner is concerned, she was not given the appointment on a plea that till life time of the panel there was no vacancy published. So far as the first empanelled candidate was concerned appointment was given but the second candidate/the writ petitioner is concerned, she was not given the appointment on a plea that till life time of the panel there was no vacancy published. Writ petitioner was aware about the vacancy, which occurred in October, 1999 and she moved from pillar to post for her appointment on the basis of her position being the second in the panel. 4. It is now settled law that the empanelled candidate cannot come and move before this Court unless and until the life of the panel is expired. However, before the expiry of the life of the panel, writ petitioner on 1st November, 2004 wrote to the Secretary/Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, 84 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 026, and made a prayer to give employment to her. In her representation she stated that a post of Urdu Teacher of OBC category sanctioned by the concerned D.I. is lying vacant in C.M.O. Girls' High School, 11 Puter Lane, Kolkata - 700 073 and the sanctioned memo of the post had already been sent to his office on 26th October, 2004. The Headmistress of the concerned school met her and she assured that in respect of the said post, the writ petitioner would be appointed within two or three days since she was the only candidate for the said vacant post. But the writ petitioner was not considered. Then the writ petitioner made another representation after the expiry of life of the panel on 26th November, 2004. None of these representations was considered nor responded. 5. The writ petitioner had no other alternative but to come up before this Court by filing a writ petition and it appears that the writ petition was filed on 17th December, 2004 after waiting a period of one and half month. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that as per notification of the concerned School Service Commission, preparation of a panel is to be made for vacancy available and likely to occur during the lifetime of the panel. According to him, it was clearly stated, at least twice, in the notification issued by the School Service Commission. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that as per notification of the concerned School Service Commission, preparation of a panel is to be made for vacancy available and likely to occur during the lifetime of the panel. According to him, it was clearly stated, at least twice, in the notification issued by the School Service Commission. According to him, the vacancy occurred in 1st October, 1999 that ought to have been taken into account and panel ought to have been prepared for the vacancy also. The respondent authorities cannot keep the post vacant and also keep the same outside the purview of the selection test, which was held in 2002. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that this is an obligation upon the School Service Commission which was created by the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 and guided by its own Rules framed in 1998. Under the said Rules being Rule 3, each Regional Commission having jurisdiction shall, on the 1st January of each year or as soon as may be thereafter receive or obtain from the Schools, or from the District Inspectors of Schools (SE) the number of the vacancies in approved posts which are then available or are expected to be available for appointment upto the second day of the next January and thereafter. Learned Counsel submits that it is undisputed that the vacancy is lying unfilled since 1st October, 1999. It was the obligation on the part of the School Service Commission to receive and obtain from the schools or from the concerned D.I. the number of vacancies which are required to be filled up. The School Service Commission did not take initiative. At least from the affidavit in opposition, submitted by the School Service Commission, it did not disclose any such effort was made on their side on the basis of Rule which required them t¢ receive and/or obtain information about the vacancies occurred and/or would occur, they did nothing. Learned Counsel submits that School Service Commission itself violated its own Rule and kept the vacancy hidden for reasons best known to them which they are not suppose to do. Learned Counsel then submits that in spite of notice and knowledge of the vacancy, the concerned D.I. sat tight over it. Learned Counsel submits that School Service Commission itself violated its own Rule and kept the vacancy hidden for reasons best known to them which they are not suppose to do. Learned Counsel then submits that in spite of notice and knowledge of the vacancy, the concerned D.I. sat tight over it. He did not take any initiative nor the School Service Commission received or obtained information no any of the respondents took any step to fill vacancy of the concerned school. Learned Counsel submits the action of all the respondents are illegal and unfair and more over it is also arbitrary to deny appointment to the petitioner in spite of available vacancy. Learned Counsel further submits that even assuming the vacancy was reported on 26th October, 2004, i.e. after about five years within the lifetime of the panel, the School Service Commission had an obligation to refer and recommend the name of the writ petitioner who stood second in the panel for giving appointment as Urdu Teacher under OBC category in the said school Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that reporting of such vacancy was also intimated by the writ petitioner by her two representations, one is dated 1st November, 2004 priory to the expiry of the lifetime of the panel and thereafter on 27th November, 2004 after expiry of the life of the panel but the respondents did not appreciate their mistake and/or illegal action. They did not recommend the name of the writ petitioner who stood second in the panel for giving appointment to the vacant post. The respondent most arbitrarily and illegally made an advertisement on 1st March, 2004 and held selection and published results on 29th November, 2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that School Service Commission had acted contrary to its own Rules which they ought not to have done. They are the creature of statute. They are required to act strictly in terms of the Rules and Regulations applicable to them. Even in spite of the fact that they have violated their own Rules and they were informed about the same, they did not correct themselves. They are the creature of statute. They are required to act strictly in terms of the Rules and Regulations applicable to them. Even in spite of the fact that they have violated their own Rules and they were informed about the same, they did not correct themselves. They did not recommend the name of the writ petitioner rather they again committed a mistake contrary to their own Rules and made a publication and prepared a second panel denying the petitioner's entitlement to have an appointment being a selected empanelled candidate to be absorbed in the vacancy which had occurred on 1st October, 1999. 7. Learned Counsel cited a decision reported (2004) 1 CLJ (Cal) 148 (Md. Hyder Ali v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein learned Single Judge of this Court following the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment held that an empanelled candidate has a legitimate right to be recommended for appointment in accordance with rules if vacancies arise and are reported within the period of the validity of the panel. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily and/ or discriminate against empanelled candidates in the matter of making recommendations. An empanelled candidate cannot be denied recommendation for appointment in a vacancy that arises and is reported during the validity period of the panel without assigning any reason. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under same set of facts this Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion declaring the right of an empanelled candidate who has a legitimate right for being recommended for appointment if vacancies arise and are reported within the period of validity of the panel. Learned Counsel cited the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (2010)4 CHN (Cal) 69 (Kaushik Mallick v. West Bengal College Service Commission & Ors.) where the Hon'ble Division Bench, was pleased to hold that right of appointment of a selected candidate against a vacant post cannot be taken away on the pretext that the panel has already expired and post has already been filled by somebody else. Usurpation of post due to the erroneous decision on the part of the appointing authority is not at all a fault on the part of the selected candidate. Discrimination and arbitrariness on the side of the College Service Commission which failed to furnish any valid reason for giving appointments to the candidates placed below the rank of the writ petitioner is not justifiable. Discrimination and arbitrariness on the side of the College Service Commission which failed to furnish any valid reason for giving appointments to the candidates placed below the rank of the writ petitioner is not justifiable. The writ petition should not be dismissed only on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Division Bench have also come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner had no control over the Commission and according to the Hon'ble Division Bench subsequent selection test held by the Commission and preparation of the panel does not amount to waiver of the right of the empanelled candidate. 8. It was submitted also that the Hon'ble Division Bench has relied on several Supreme Court's decisions declaring right of an empanelled candidate who has been selected upon going through a proper procedure of selection held by the aforementioned Service Commission. He also cited another decision reported in ((2005)1 CLJ (Cal) 589 (Oliul Islam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). In this case learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court is of the view that the selected empanelled candidate cannot suffer any injury due to any communicational gap between the school authorities and the School Service Commission. According to the learned Single Judge, the right of the petitioner for being considered for the post from the panel cannot be denied. The Commission cannot avoid its responsibility by simply denying the right of the selected candidate on the plea that the name of the petitioner cannot be recommended after the expiry of the panel, when the power of the Commission to extend the life of the panel is not unknown. Learned Counsel further submits that in that case this Hon'ble Court issued a direction to regularise the appointment of the writ petitioner and approve the service in the said School with effect from the date of joining. Learned Counsel further submits that in the instant case, the School Service Commission has come forward and fighting against the writ petitioner so that she does not get appointment, although she has a legitimate right to be absorbed. Learned Counsel again submits that the power and authority of the School Service Commission circumscribed and they should not be allowed to cross their limit. They are not at all entitled to say which candidate should be appointed which are not. Learned Counsel again submits that the power and authority of the School Service Commission circumscribed and they should not be allowed to cross their limit. They are not at all entitled to say which candidate should be appointed which are not. They have their right to hold the selection process and prepare the panel and to recommend, nothing, more, nothing less. They should not be allowed to deny recommendation of the selected candidates. According to the learned Counsel the School. Service Commission is crossing the limit, if they come and say that the writ petitioner who was empanelled after a lawful procedure was conducted and got the employment, is not entitled to be recommended. But the Commission is unlawfully not recommending the selected person. 9. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner was discriminated by the respondent authorities although she was entitled to have an appointment upon recommendation of the School Service Commission. The School Service Commission did not recommend her name intentionally and deliberately and wrongly published a notification for holding a further selection for the said post and preparation of panel, although prior to holding selection test, the vacancy occurred and the District Inspector reported the same during the lifetime of the panel. Learned Counsel submits that the School Service Commission should be directed to recommend the writ petitioner and the concerned respondents are also to be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner who is fighting before this Court since 2004. The post is lying vacant till today. 10. In course of hearing, this, Court directed the Headmistress of the said school to give an information whether the vacancy is still lying unfilled or not. The Headmistress did not choose to appear. Therefore, she was directed to be produced by police before this Court and then she came. Today at the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Headmistress submits that the post is lying vacant but that is not for OBC candidate. He further submits that there is no scope for giving appointment to the writ petitioner in the said school. 11. Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the School Service Commission submits that the writ petitioner has come up about one and half month late from the expiry of life of the panel i.e. on 17th December, 2004. He further submits that there is no scope for giving appointment to the writ petitioner in the said school. 11. Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the School Service Commission submits that the writ petitioner has come up about one and half month late from the expiry of life of the panel i.e. on 17th December, 2004. Therefore, the period of delay is a fatal one and this Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of a clear view that after expiry of the life of the panel, writ petition should not be entertained. Mr. Chakraborty cited two decisions, one is reported in (1996)2 SCC 7 (State of Bihar & Ors. v. Md. Kalimuddin & Ors.) and the other decision is reported in 2003 CWN 1001 (The Secretary, Vivekanandapally Kishore Bharati High School v. Munshi Mohammad Mansur & Ors.). Mr. Chakraborty submits that on the ground of delay alone, the writ petition should be rejected. He then submits that Rule 3 of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission Rules is very relevant and applicable in the instant case. According to him, the vacancy was reported only, on 26th October, 2004 i.e. after declaration of the results of RLST 2002 on 8th August, 2003. Another publication was made for fifth RLST on 1st March, 2004 and publication of results of written test was made on 29th November, 2004. Therefore, Mr. Chakraborty submits that this vacancy is not covered under RLST 2002 and, according to him, there is no scope for recommending the name of the writ petitioner for being appointed in the said vacancy although occurred on 1st November, 1999 in the said school. He submits that School Service Commission is required to act under its own rules and the School Service Commission has, in the instant case, acted as per Rules 3 and 8 of the aforementioned Rules and, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the Commission. According to him, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any recommendation nor she is to be given appointment in the vacancy for which different tests were held and selection was made. Mr. Chakraborty laid emphasis on the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit in opposition. According to him, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any recommendation nor she is to be given appointment in the vacancy for which different tests were held and selection was made. Mr. Chakraborty laid emphasis on the averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit in opposition. In those two paragraphs it was specified that up to 2nd January, 2004, as declared in the newspaper, no report was received by the Commission and, as such, the writ petitioner cannot be recommended for appointment. It is only reported on 26th October, 2004 much after the stipulated date of receipt of vacancy report from the concerned D.I. of Schools and the said vacancy does not come under the purview of RLST 2002. The said vacancy is meant for fifth RLST for which advertisement was made on 1st March, 2004 and publication of results of written test made on 29th November, 2004. According to him, the writ petitioner should not be given appointment. He emphatically submitted that the responsibility of School Service Commission is very heavy. Although, they are not the appointing authority. Mr. Chakraborty submits that grounds mentioned in the affidavit in opposition are very strong and supported by the relevant rules contrary to which, the Commission cannot do any act. He further submits that the Commission has acted within its limit. There is no scope for discrimination of any of the panelists, although the panel was prepared earlier and although the vacancy occurred before the publication, inviting the application for holding interview and publication of results and, moreover, receiving of the vacancy position during the lifetime of the panel. 12. Mr. De, learned Counsel appearing for the District Inspector and the State authorities, submits that it was obligation on the side of the School to inform the vacancy position, which was not done in the instant case. Vacancy was not counted for. This vacancy was not published. It was stipulated that selection was being made for available vacancies as well as vacancies to be occurred within the lifetime of the panel. Mr. De submits that there is no scope for giving appointment to the writ petitioner although she has been selected and empanelled as second candidate; 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in reply submits that the judgments referred by Mr. Mr. De submits that there is no scope for giving appointment to the writ petitioner although she has been selected and empanelled as second candidate; 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in reply submits that the judgments referred by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the School Service Commission, are delivered on different set of facts and those are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He submits that this Hon'ble Court should restrict the School Service Commission not to go beyond its rules and should fix the periphery of it within the scope and ambit of the Rules in that regard. The School Service Commission should not act as an appointing authority. They are the body for holding selection and recommendation and they have no power and authority to give appointment. Their functions are restricted to recommendation and they are to act as a recommending body. He submits that, in the instant case, the School Service Commission has taken the entire burden on behalf of all the respondents on its shoulder which they are not supposed to take. Although, the vacancy is in the knowledge of the School Service Commission but during lifetime of the panel, they did not recommend to publish the notification for the said vacancy which they cannot do. They had acted unfairly, illegally, they have treated the writ petitioner in a discriminatory manner. They have clearly violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel submits that the said authority also did not act properly and fairly. The concerned District Inspector, who is supposed to know the vacancy status, and the school did not take step, rather they sat tight since 1999 to 2004 and did not inform the School Service Commission for holding test and selection and this act on the side of the concerned D.I., school, or other authorities is discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and for their illegal action, the empanelled candidate should not suffer who is lawfully and legitimately entitled to be recommended and absorbed in the vacancy. 14. Heard the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also carefully considered their submissions and materials on records. 15. It is admitted position that the vacancy of the Assistant Teacher in Urdu under OBC category occurred on 1st October, 1999. 14. Heard the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also carefully considered their submissions and materials on records. 15. It is admitted position that the vacancy of the Assistant Teacher in Urdu under OBC category occurred on 1st October, 1999. It is not known why steps were not taken by the school authorities to inform the concerned D.I. It is also not know why the D.I. did not take any information about it and why the D.I. did not take steps for referring it to the School Service Commission. It is also not known why the School Service Commission under Rule 3 did not receive and obtain information about the vacancy position. There is no answer to these quarries. Although, it appears that the post of an assistant teacher in Urdu under OBC category is lying vacant for about five years in a school. The students are deprived, the teacher concerned who was lawfully selected, is deprived. The concerned school is in capable of providing education to the students who are in dire need to having assistance of a competent teacher. There is also no answer why the School Service Commission did not obtain such information, although they are obliged to obtain and receive such information as per provisions of Rule 3. The respondent authorities are responsible for such illegality. Neither of the officers of the concerned State authorities nor the School Service Commission acted in terms of law. They did not discharge their function. Having such higher responsibility no effort was made to have/obtain such information. They failed to discharge their statutory duties. Surprisingly enough that in 2002 a publication was made by the School Service Commission for holding a selection and preparation of panel under OBC category. A valid panel was prepared and in the said panel the writ petitioner stood second. First one was appointed and the second one was not given appointment deliberately and intentionally although it appears from records that on 26th October, 2004 the concerned D.I. was aware of the vacancy. The School Service Commission is also aware of the vacancy which has occurred during the lifetime of the panel. First one was appointed and the second one was not given appointment deliberately and intentionally although it appears from records that on 26th October, 2004 the concerned D.I. was aware of the vacancy. The School Service Commission is also aware of the vacancy which has occurred during the lifetime of the panel. The School Service Commission which is obliged under Rule 3 to have the information from the authority concerned, did not take such information, did not act in terms of Rule 3, although prepared panel, but did not recommend the name of the writ petitioner in the vacancy occurred in 1st October, 1999 and is kept vacant till this date i.e. 13th May, 2013. Who is responsible for that? 16. It appears that all the authorities which should have obtained information about the vacancy, did not have it for their own latches. The students are the worst sufferers. The School Service Commission who were oblivion about their duty did not receive and obtain the vacancy position and is fighting against the writ petitioner who is legitimately entitled to have an appointment in the said vacancy. 17. I have considered the Rules. According to me, Rule 3 of the aforementioned Rules is relevant. For better appreciation Rule 3 is quoted hereunder:- "3. Information regarding vacancies - Each Regional Commission having jurisdiction shall, on the 1st January of each year or as soon as may be thereafter, receive or obtain from the Schools (Secondary Education) the number of the vacancies in approved posts which are then available or are expected to be available for appointment upto the second day of next January and thereafter, in case, such requisition is not available, the vacancy position may be obtained from the Director of School Education, West Bengal, or from the Central Commission." 18. A plain reading of the Rule indicate each Regional Commission having jurisdiction shall, on the first day of each year or as soon as may be thereafter, receive or obtain from the schools or from the District Inspectors of Schools (SE) the number of the vacancies in approved posts which are then available or are expected to be available for appointment. Therefore, the School Service Commission is to obtain not only the vacancies fallen vacant but also which are expected to fall vacant up to the next January and thereafter. Therefore, the School Service Commission is to obtain not only the vacancies fallen vacant but also which are expected to fall vacant up to the next January and thereafter. Therefore, there is no doubt that the vacancy position for the present and for future is to be ascertained by the School Service Commission. 19. In the instant case, they have not done the same. At least from records and from affidavit in opposition no document, no evidence, is available from which it could be shown that School Service Commission has ever asked any of the authorities to give information about the vacancy position on that date and for the future. Therefore, the commission itself violated the provisions of Rule 3 of the aforementioned Rules. 20. In my considered opinion, without obtaining such information the School Service Commission invited applications for holding interview and published the results and prepared a panel where petitioner stood second. Since preparation of the panel was made and/or completed in a lawful manner, they have an obligation to recommend the names for the vacancies existing and for the vacancies which have occurred during the lifetime of the panel. The function of the Commission ends there. But unfortunately they did not comply with their own rules nor they recommended the name of the petitioner in existing vacancy, but they started a fresh selection process which they are not authorised to do. Simply because they have got information after publication of the result of RLST 2002 test, they cannot say nor the rules permit them to say that a second or subsequent panel should be prepared for filling up the vacancy that had fallen vacant long before starting the selection process of RLST 2002 and also they got information, as claimed, within the life time of the panel. The function of the School Service Commission as I have said, are very limited one. They are to get information and they are to prepare the panel and recommend for filling up all the posts fallen vacant till the date of expiry of the panel. They are obliged to do so under the Act. Even if, they receive the information on the last date of the life of the panel, they are obliged to recommend the name of the selected candidate for absorption in that post. They cannot go beyond that. They are obliged to do so under the Act. Even if, they receive the information on the last date of the life of the panel, they are obliged to recommend the name of the selected candidate for absorption in that post. They cannot go beyond that. Any communicational gap between the D.I. and any other authority or on the side of the Commission to have the information, cannot be a plea and/or escape route to avoid the legitimate right of the writ petitioner who has been lawfully empanelled being selected by the Public Service Commission. Public Service Commission cannot ignore such right. They cannot act discriminatorily. They cannot act contrary to the Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, there is a clear violation on the side of the School Service Commission who were obliged to recommend the petitioner's name even on 26th October, 2004 when as claimed by them, they have got the information about the vacancy and since the lifetime of the panel expired on 6th November, 2004. 21. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel, Mr. Chakraborty. Accordingly, the submissions made by him are rejected. 22. So far the alleged plea of delay is concerned, I also do not find any substance specially when the petitioner who was to be recommended by the School Service Commission, cannot come before this Hon'ble Court prior to expiry of the life of the panel. It is pertinent to mention also that within the life time of the panel she made a representation to the concerned authority on 1st November, 2004 informing them the vacancy is existing and also requested them to absorb her. It was also recorded by her that the Headmistress of the concerned school approached the concerned Secretary who assured the writ petitioner would be appointed within a day or two. She has nothing more to do in that regard. She has reasonably waited for a limited time till 25th November, 2004 when she made second representation to the said authority to the effect that she is entitled to be recommended but the concerned authority did not care for the representation nor a reply was given. She has nothing more to do in that regard. She has reasonably waited for a limited time till 25th November, 2004 when she made second representation to the said authority to the effect that she is entitled to be recommended but the concerned authority did not care for the representation nor a reply was given. Ultimately, waiting for one and half months time, she came up before this Court but this Hon'ble Court could not dispose of this writ petition for about eight years for which also she could not be blamed. 23. In my considered opinion, the writ petitioner has nothing more to do. She cannot do any further. She is mere an aspirant who has appeared at the interview and got herself qualified and empanelled. The authority who is obliged to recommend the name of the writ petitioner but did not recommend her name is solely responsible for the happening. There is no delay as such. In such circumstances, the plea of delay is without any basis, without any substance and, therefore, this plea is rejected having no merit at all. The judgment of the Apex Court cited by Mr. Chakraborty in State of Bihar and Others v. Md. Kalimuddin & Ors. (supra) is totally on a different set of facts which has no application at all. In that case the controversy was whether the period of life of select list prepared under the statutory rule already expired, would be continued under the order of High Court. But in the instant case, the facts are totally different and point for consideration is also totally different. Here in this case, during the lifetime of the panel, prior to notification and/or holding interview, vacancy occurred but petitioner's name was not recommended. Therefore, the said judgment is of no assistance to Mr. Chakraborty's client. The other judgment of Mr. Chakraborty delivered by this Court is on a different context. The panel was prepared not following regular procedure by the school and the local authority and no appointment letter was issued. Therefore, the subject mater of this writ petition is totally different from the said facts which were under consideration in this judgment. Therefore, these two judgments are of no assistance of Mr. Chakraborty's clients. 24. In my view, the judgments are of no relevance and have no manner of applications in this case. Therefore, the subject mater of this writ petition is totally different from the said facts which were under consideration in this judgment. Therefore, these two judgments are of no assistance of Mr. Chakraborty's clients. 24. In my view, the judgments are of no relevance and have no manner of applications in this case. Therefore, on that ground also, the writ petition should be allowed. 25. However, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner are very relevant and applicable in the present state of facts. 26. The. first judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Md. Hyder Ali v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) clearly held that the empanelled candidate has a legitimate right to be recommended for appointment, if the vacancies arise and are reported within the validity period of the panel. It was also held that an empanelled candidate cannot be denied recommendation for appointment in a vacancy that arises and is reported during the validity of the panel without assigning any reason. The relevant paragraph, being paragraphs 17 and 19 are quoted hereunder: "17. The empanelled candidate has a legitimate right to be recommended for appointment in accordance with rules if vacancies arise and are reported within the period of the validity of the panel. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily and/or discriminate against empanelled candidates in the matter of making recommendations. An empanelled candidate cannot be denied recommendation for appointment in a vacancy that arises and is reported during the period of validity of the panel without assigning any reason. 19. The panel, in the instant case, was valid when the notice of December, 2002 was issued. Vacancies having arisen within the period of validity of the panel the respondents should have first exhausted the panel before calling for fresh applications. No reasons are forthcoming for not recommending the petitioner for appointment to a post of Arabic teacher which fell vacant within the period of validity of the panel." 27. The other judgment delivered by another learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Oliul Islam Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.(supra) also clearly held in respect of the point that in case of any communicational gap, the selected candidate cannot be victimized nor the candidate could be denied appointment. The other judgment delivered by another learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Oliul Islam Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.(supra) also clearly held in respect of the point that in case of any communicational gap, the selected candidate cannot be victimized nor the candidate could be denied appointment. The Commission cannot also avoid its responsibility by simply denying the right of the petitioner on the plea that the name of the writ petitioner cannot be recommended after the expiry of the panel when the power of the Commission to extend the life of the panel is not unknown. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 12 which is quoted: hereunder: "12. Admittedly, the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 joined their respective Schools as Headmaster therein. The appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the respective schools as Headmaster therein was also approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. If, however, due to any default on the part of the school authority and/or concerned District Inspector of Schools, the concerned Commission was not informed about the disinclination of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to join the concerned post, the right of the petitioner for being considered for the said post from the panel cannot be denied. The Commission cannot avoid its responsibility by simply denying the right of the petitioner on the plea that the name of the petitioner cannot be recommended after expiry of the panel, when the power of the Commission to extend the life of the panel is not unknown." 28. In this judgment this Hon'ble Court has gone one step further and held that when the power is with the commission to extend the life time, Commission should not deny recommendation and/or refer the name of the empanelled candidate for appointment. The other judgment of the Division Bench that the selected candidate had no control over the Commission's subsequent selection and empanelment of a different candidate and even appointment does not amount to waive the right of the selected candidate. According to the Hon'ble Division Bench the expiry of the life of the panel to defeat the rightful and legitimate claim of the selected candidate since the respondent-College Service Commission by their illegal acts frustrated the very object of preparing the merit panel. All the aforementioned three judgments support the case of the writ petitioner. 29. According to the Hon'ble Division Bench the expiry of the life of the panel to defeat the rightful and legitimate claim of the selected candidate since the respondent-College Service Commission by their illegal acts frustrated the very object of preparing the merit panel. All the aforementioned three judgments support the case of the writ petitioner. 29. Accordingly, I do not have any doubt in my mind to conclude that the writ petitioner having ,been selected and empanelled ought to have been recommended by the School Service Commission for giving appointment, since the vacancy is available on and from 1st October, 1999 and which was informed on 26th October, 2004, during the lifetime of the panel. In that view of the matter, I direct the Regional Service Commission, Southern Zone, to recommend the writ petitioner's name for giving appointment in the C.M.O. Girls' High School within period of two weeks from date. The learned Advocate on record for the writ petitioner is permitted to communicate this order by his letter and the School Service Commission as well as the concerned District Inspector is to act on that basis. 30. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.