JUDGMENT 1. In the writ petition, affirmed on 26th February, 2013, the petitioner who was a candidate for the post of primary teacher in the 2006 selection process conducted by South 24-Parganas District Primary School Council (‘Council’ for short), the respondent no. 4, has prayed for a direction upon the authorities to appoint him as teacher. Submission has been made as under the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 marks awarded in the Madhyamik Examination are taken into consideration and as the petitioner secured higher marks in Madhyamik Examination than two successful candidates, who have been specifically named in the petition and as the petitioner had obtained more marks than the last cut-off marks for appointment, he is eligible for being appointed. It has been stated that as the petitioner has been discriminated and there has been gross illegality in the preparation of the panel, appropriate order may be passed directing appointment. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B : (1999) 6 S.C.C. 49 in support of his submission. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Council refuting the allegation in the writ petition has submitted that as under Rule 13 of 2001 a panel even after extension is valid for a maximum period of two years and as in this case the panel of successful candidates published on 14th August, 2010 had lapsed on 13th August, 2011 and as the writ petition challenging the selection process as well as preparation of the panel was filed belatedly, that is, after the life of the panel had expired, in view of the settled principles of law, no order may be passed. Learned advocate for the Council has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court and Calcutta High Court in support of his submission, which are as under :- i) Union of India v. B. Valluvan: AIR (2007) SC 210; ii) M. P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma: (2002) 9 SCC 650 ; iii) State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra: (2006) 12 SCC 561 ; iv) Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan: (2009) 2 SCC 706 ; v) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa: (2010) 12 SCC 471 and vi) Simi Jana v. State of West Bengal: (2013) 1 WBLR (Cal) 601. 3. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner had participated in the 2006 selection process. His name did not figure in the panel. Thus he was unsuccessful. In this background the question to be considered is whether a writ petition challenging the selection process as well as preparation of panel is maintainable after the panel had expired. 4. In order to answer the issue it is necessary to set out Rule 13 of the Rules, which is extracted hereunder:- “Validity of the panel.- Approved panel shall remain valid normally for one year from the date of approval by the Director or his authorised officer provided that the Director or his authorised officer may extend the validity of such panel by six months at a time, but the total period of such extension shall not exceed one year.” 5. As noted, a panel approved by the Director under the Rules shall be valid for one year. However, the Director or his authorized officer may extend its validity by six months at a time, but the total period shall not exceed one year, meaning thereby an approved panel at the most shall be valid for two years. In the instant case the panel had lapsed on 13th August, 2011. Assuming the validity of the panel was extended for one more year as stipulated in the Rule and had expired on 13th August, 2012, the issue is whether the writ petition is maintainable after the life of the panel had expired. In my view, as the principles of law are well settled, the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the Apex Court in State of Bihar vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra) had held – “Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.” (paragraph-9). 6. Similarly in M. P. Electricity Board (supra) where prayer was made for appointment of the selectee after expiry of the panel on the basis of the Circular mentioned, while allowing the appeal and negating the plea of the selectee it was held “Any scheme for selection will depend upon the terms on which selections are made. 6. Similarly in M. P. Electricity Board (supra) where prayer was made for appointment of the selectee after expiry of the panel on the basis of the Circular mentioned, while allowing the appeal and negating the plea of the selectee it was held “Any scheme for selection will depend upon the terms on which selections are made. In the present case, there is a scheme as provided in the circular dated 9-12-1968 and that circular also provided for the panel to be valid/current for a particular period namely one year. After that period, the list would lapse and fresh panel has to be prepared. If that is the scheme, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent would be of any assistance. The High Court is also not justified in relying upon the decision in Shivsingh case inasmuch as the scheme of appointment was entirely different. Moreover the validity/currency of panel was for a particular period; that is the salutary principle, behind that Rule so that after the selections are made and appointments to be made may take long time, it is possible that new candidates may have become available who are better or more qualified than those selected, and if they are appointed it would be in the best interests of the institution. Hence we do not think there was any justification for the High Court to have interfered in the matter and directed appointment of the respondent……….” (paragraph 5). 7. Similar situation arose in the case of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (supra) where the petitioners were seeking appointment by filing writ petitions pursuant to a Full Bench judgment where provisions were declared unconstitutional. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that as vacancy still existed, even without disturbing the existing appointees, the appellants could be accommodated. This argument was countered on behalf of the State by submitting that as they did not file any writ petition in the year 1998-99, the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition as being barred by delay and laches. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal held that “the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether the validity of the said select list was extended or not is not known. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal held that “the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether the validity of the said select list was extended or not is not known. Extension of select list must be done in accordance with law. Apart from a bald statement made in the list of dates that the validity of the said select list had been extended, no document in support thereof has been placed before us”. (paragraph – 16) 8. An identical issue came up for consideration in Union of India vs. B. Balluvan (supra) where the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held that “Life of a panel, as is well known, must be for a limited period. It is governed by the statutory rules”. (paragraph-12) 9. A similar issue was under consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Simi Jana (supra) wherein the writ petition was dismissed as it was filed after expiry of the panel. 10. Therefore, law is any challenge with regard to the panel must be made during its validity. Keeping the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court in mind, it is to be noted wherever selection and appointment are regulated by statutory rules, challenge to such list of selectees must be made within the validity of the panel. As under Rule 13 a panel even after extension is valid for a maximum period of two years and as the writ petition was filed after the panel had expired, and as by filing the petition belatedly, the petitioner, in the instant case has taken a chance, the argument on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) wherein it has been held that “It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the court is guilty of delay and the laches………” (paragraph-29). No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the court is guilty of delay and the laches………” (paragraph-29). The judgment in Purushottam (supra) relied on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case as therein the appellant was a duly selected candidate for being appointed, whereas in the instant case the name of the petitioner did not figure in the panel which had expired on 13th August, 2011. Therefore, for the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.