JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. 1. All these three appeals are directed against judgment dated September 1, 2014 passed in W.P. No. 16421 (W) of 2011. By virtue of the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge directed the University of Burdwan to consider the names of the respondent of the appeal bearing FMA No. 2736 of 2015 on the basis of their position in the panel in respect of the fifteen vacancies in the post of Junior Assistants which had arisen between February 10, 2009 and November 8, 2011. There was further direction that in the event there were other candidates from the panel who had approached the Court for the same or similar relief, the University should ascertain from them whether they want their cases to be considered in the manner directed in the impugned judgment or not and in the event such individuals agreed to be considered in the above terms, then their cases should also be considered in the same manner, otherwise it should be open to the University and such candidates to prosecute their respective claims in such litigations, if there was any. 2. The appeal bearing FMA No. 2736 of 2015 was preferred by the University of Burdwan. The appeals bearing FMA No. 3569 of 2015 and FMA No. 3570 of 2015 were preferred against the impugned judgment by the candidates whose names had been appearing in the panel in question above the respondents of FMA No. 2736 of 2015 but who were not made parties to the writ application bearing W.P. No. 15421 (W) of 2011. The appeals bearing FMA No. 3569 of 2015 and FMA No. 3570 of 2015 was admitted upon consideration of their application praying for leave to prefer the aforesaid appeals. 3. The backdrop of the matter, in a nutshell, is as under:- "The University of Burdwan published an advertisement No. 4/2008 dated February 10, 2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to participate in a selection process for appointment of successful candidates in such process in different posts including the post of Junior Assistant." 4. The respondents in FMA 2736 of 2015 and appellants in FMA 3569 of 2015, FMA 3570 of 2015, participated in the above selection process, amongst other candidates. The respondents in FMA 2736 of 2015 and appellants in FMA 3569 of 2015, FMA 3570 of 2015, participated in the above selection process, amongst other candidates. Considering the performances of the respective participants a panel of successful candidates consisting of 121 names in respect of the post of Junior Assistant, (83 candidates under General Category + 26 candidates under Schedule Cast Category + 7 candidates under Schedule Tribe Category + 5 candidates under Physically Challenged Category), was approved in the meeting by the Executive Council of the University in its 8th meeting dated November 9, 2010 (Item No. 151). It was further resolved by the Executive Council of the University in the above meeting that the offers of appointment be issued to 47 candidates belonging to General Category, 13 candidates belonging to Schedule Cast Category, 4 candidates belonging to Schedule Tribe Category and 3 candidates belonging to Physically Challenged Category from the panel of Junior Assistant serially for the substantive posts of Junior Assistant against the vacant posts of Junior Assistant taking into account also the vacant promotional posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent keeping the vacant posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent in abeyance. 5. By adopting a further resolution, the Executive Council of the University of Burdwan in its 10th meeting (2010-2011) dated December 14, 2010, the above panel of the selected candidates was kept valid for one year from the date of meeting of the Executive Council, i.e. from the date of adopting resolution in its 8th meeting (2010-2011) of the Executive Council held on November 9, 2010. 6. The writ application was filed by the petitioners for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, amongst others, for directing the University of Burdwan for their appointment in the post of Junior Assistant on the ground that there had been existence of 121 vacancies, out of which 83 vacancies were in respect of the candidates belonging to General Categories, but only 47 successful candidates were appointed from the General Categories in respect of the above vacancies. The names of the respondent/writ petitioners appeared in the above panel against serial Nos. 74, 52, 58, 60, 63, 73, 79 and 80 of the above panel. Subsequently 4 empanelled candidates belonging to General Category were added to the writ application whose names had been appearing against serial Nos. 54, 55, 77 and 82 respectively. 7. The names of the respondent/writ petitioners appeared in the above panel against serial Nos. 74, 52, 58, 60, 63, 73, 79 and 80 of the above panel. Subsequently 4 empanelled candidates belonging to General Category were added to the writ application whose names had been appearing against serial Nos. 54, 55, 77 and 82 respectively. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/University in appeal bearing FMA No. 2736 of 2015 that the sanctioned strength for the post of Junior Assistant was 160 as approved by the Executive Council of the appellant University in its meeting held on July 4, 1986. Extract from the employment register of the appellant/University had been produced before the learned Single Judge showing that on February 10, 2009, i.e. the date of publishing of advertisement inviting applications for the post in question, there were 106 individuals on employment of the University as Junior Assistants. According to him, it was not in dispute, therefore, that there were 54 vacancies on the date of advertisement in respect of the post in question. By virtue of the resolution adopted by the Executive Council in its 8th meeting (2010-2011) dated November 9, 2010, 67 vacancies (General Category- 47 + Schedule Cast- 13 + Schedule Tribe- 4 + Physically Challenged- 3) were filled up. Since there were 54 vacancies in total (inclusive of all categories), thirteen (13) vacant promotional posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent were resolved to be kept in abeyance for accommodating the remaining candidates over and above the 54 vacancies in total (inclusive of all categories) which were available at that material point of time. According to Mr. Gupta, though the above particulars in details had been brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge, there was erroneous finding in the impugned judgment that there were 15 vacancies over and above the aforesaid 67 vacancies in respect of the posts of Junior Assistant at that material point of time. It is further submitted by him that according to the settled principles of law should not be filled up from the successful candidates whose name appeared in the panel in question treating that panel of the successful candidates for filling up of the subsequent vacancies. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted by him that according to the settled principles of law should not be filled up from the successful candidates whose name appeared in the panel in question treating that panel of the successful candidates for filling up of the subsequent vacancies. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta that there was no error or illegality in keeping the panel valid for a period of one year from the date of approval of the above panel. It is further submitted by him that after the filling up of all the vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant which had been in existence during the lifetime of the panel in question, i.e. 67 vacancies as discussed in details hereinabove, the panel seized to exist according to the settled principles of law and the above panel should not be used as a reservoir of successful candidates for filling up of subsequent vacancies. 9. According to Mr. Gupta, appointments to the 67 posts of Junior Assistant were filled up from the panel in question giving appointment to the empanelled candidates in total (inclusive of all categories) in order of merit. None of the respondent or the appellants in two other appeals bearing FMA No. 3569 of 2015 and FMA No. 3570 of 2015 respectively, were superseded and as such none of them was prejudiced. It is further pointed out by him that the validity of the action on part of the appellant/University in filling up 13 posts over and above existing 54 vacancies in total (inclusive of all categories) at the material point of time was not under challenge in the writ application. 10. Reliance is placed by the Mr. Gupta on the decisions of Arup Das & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 559 , Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2179 , Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 , and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 in support of his above submissions. 11. It is submitted by Mr. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 , and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 in support of his above submissions. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that it is the settled principles of law that filling up of anticipated vacancies arising during the existence of the panel is permissible. Drawing our attention towards the Item No. 151 a communication issued by the Registrar of the appellant/University under memo No. R-S/Legal/95 dated August 29, 2013 (at page 80) of the paper book it is submitted by him that the contents of the above communication was corroborating with the above minutes of the meeting. Our attention is also drawn towards the minutes of the 8th meeting (2010-2011) of the Executive Council of the University of Burdwan held on January 9, 2010 to show that the total number of vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant was 67. Our attentions is further drawn towards the submissions made in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in support of the above submission. Our further attention was drawn towards the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in support of his above submissions to show that vacancy available on the date of advertisement was 67. 15 vacancies were available over and above 67 vacancies for the post in question. According to him, those were anticipated vacancies. Therefore, according to him, there was no error or infirmity in the impugned judgment to direct the appellant/University to consider the cases of the respondents/writ petitioners for appointment in the post in question. 12. It is further submitted by Mr. Moitra that it has correctly been observed in the impugned judgment that the petitioners were entitled to be considered against the aforesaid 15 vacancies and the other persons whose names appeared in the panel in question above the names of the writ petitioners deserved no consideration in view of the admitted fact that they were fence sitters. Moitra that it has correctly been observed in the impugned judgment that the petitioners were entitled to be considered against the aforesaid 15 vacancies and the other persons whose names appeared in the panel in question above the names of the writ petitioners deserved no consideration in view of the admitted fact that they were fence sitters. It is also submitted by him that the impugned judgment is the sound exercise of discretion and as a result the Appeal Court should not interfere with the impugned judgment though the stand taken by the appellant/University was contradictory to the stand taken by the learned Single Judge. 13. Reliance is placed by Mr. Moitra on the decisions of Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (1997) 8 SCC 488 , Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 319 , Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 , Anurag Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 4542 , H.L. Trehan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 568 , The State of Assam & Anr. v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, reported in 1972 SLR 915, State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2219, S.S. Balu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 , Nadia Distt. Primary School Council & Anr. v. Sristidhar Biswas & Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 779 , State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 , Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612, Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jasmine Kaur & Ors., reported in AIR 2015 SC 34 and Kohinur Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 2008 (CAL) 84 in support of his above submissions. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in FMA No. 3569 of 2015 that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the above appellants were not made parties in the writ application. Though their names had been placed above those of the respondents/writ petitioners in the panel in question. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in FMA No. 3569 of 2015 that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the above appellants were not made parties in the writ application. Though their names had been placed above those of the respondents/writ petitioners in the panel in question. It is also submitted by him that in their absence the writ application was not maintainable due to non-joinder of parties and for that reason the claim of the above appellants should not be thrown away on the ground of expiry of the above panel. It is further submitted by him that in the facts and circumstances involved in the case in hand, re-arrangement of select list is permissible in view of the settle principles of law. 15. Reliance is placed by Mr. Chatterjee on the decisions of Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. & Anr., reported in (1999) 6 SCC 49 , K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 , State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 in support of his above submissions. 16. It is submitted by Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya appearing for the appellants in FMA No. 3570 of 2015 that in the facts and circumstances involved in the writ application, the learned Single Judge was in error to give direction for consideration of the cases of the writ petitioners superseded the above appellants since the issue involved in the writ application was decided behind the back of the above appellants. Dealing with the question of filling up of the vacancies in piecemeal manner. 17. It is submitted by Mr. Jahar Lal De, learned State advocate that the relief should have been granted by the learned Single Judge to the empanelled candidates in order of merit. According to him, there was no scope for the empanelled candidates whose name appeared above those of the writ petitioners to collect information about the consideration of the writ application. They were not made parties to this writ application. According to Mr. According to him, there was no scope for the empanelled candidates whose name appeared above those of the writ petitioners to collect information about the consideration of the writ application. They were not made parties to this writ application. According to Mr. De, in view of the above facts and circumstances as also taking into consideration the fact that they appeared before the Court during the continuation of the legal proceeding at the appeal stage, they should not be considered as fence sitters. 18. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and we have considered the facts and circumstances of these appeals. 19. The first contention of the appellant/University in its appeal is that the vacancies arising during the lifetime of the panel could not be capable of being filled up from the empanelled candidates of that panel. The learned Single Judge took into consideration the number of total vacancies on the basis of the records produced before the Court. According to the record of the appellant/University, the sanction strength of the post of Junior Assistant was 160 in total (inclusive of all categories). On the date of advertisement, i.e. on February 10, 2009 106 individuals (belonging to all categories) were on employment of the University. So, the number of total existing vacancy was admittedly 54 (General Category- 47 + Schedule Cast-13 + Schedule Tribe- 4 + Physically Challenged- 3). It is not in dispute that a panel consisting of the names of 121 successful candidates was published in connection with the selection process in question so far as the post of Junior Assistant was concerned. It is not in dispute that though the total number of vacancy in respect of the post of Junior Assistant was 54 in total (inclusive of all categories) till the date of publishing the advertisement, appointments were given to 67 candidates (belonging to all categories) from the above panel. It is not in dispute that though the total number of vacancy in respect of the post of Junior Assistant was 54 in total (inclusive of all categories) till the date of publishing the advertisement, appointments were given to 67 candidates (belonging to all categories) from the above panel. It appears from the minutes of the 8th meeting (2010-2011) of Executive Council of the University of Burdwan held on November 9, 2010 that the Council resolved (Item No. 151) that offers of appointment would be issued to 67 candidates in total (inclusive of all categories) from the panel in question serially for the substantive post of Junior Assistant against the vacant posts as also taking into account the vacant promotional posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent keeping those vacant posts in abeyance. Therefore, after giving appointments to 54 candidates in total (inclusive of all categories) out of which 47 candidates were belonging to General Category, against existing vacancy, the University filled up 13 more posts in total (inclusive of all categories) keeping vacant promotional post of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent in abeyance. In view of the above facts and circumstances it was not in dispute that there was no remaining vacancy for the post in question which could be filled up from the empanelled candidates. According to the materials on record, the Executive Council of the University of Burdwan adopted a resolution in its 10th meeting (2010-2011) of the Executive Council held on December 14, 2010 to keep the above panel valid for one year from the date of meeting of the Executive Council, i.e. from November 9, 2010. No material is available on record to arrive at a conclusion that any anticipated vacancy was taken into consideration to keep the above panel alive. 20. It is the settled principles of law that filling up of vacancies over and above number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. 20. It is the settled principles of law that filling up of vacancies over and above number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person, as Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake, it cannot be allowed to perpetuate that mistake. Reference may be made to the decision of State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330 and the relevant portion of the decision is set out below:- "15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. (See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P.; Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G., Health Services; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeeb v. Sarwal; Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi; Union of India v. International Trading Co. and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority.)" 21. In the matter of Sanjoy Bhattacharjee v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 283 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that everyone in open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and which would be consistent of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India and no direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted could not be granted. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- "4. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- "4. For subsequent vacancies, everyone in the open market is entitled to apply for consideration of his/her claim on merit in accordance with law and it would be consistent with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the direction sought for not to fill up the vacancies having arisen subsequently until the candidates in the waiting list are exhausted, cannot be granted. The Tribunal rightly refused to grant any such direction." 22. In the matter of Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637 it was observed by the Apex Court that waiting list etc. cannot be used as a reservoir to fill up the vacancy which comes into existence after the issuance of notification/advertisement. The unexhausted select list/waiting list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed in service anymore. The relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:- "12. In view of above, the law can be summarised to the effect that any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, thus, a nullity, inexecutable and unenforceable in law. In case the vacancies notified stand filled up, the process of selection comes to an end. Waiting list, etc. cannot be used as a reservoir, to fill up the vacancy which comes into existence after the issuance of notification/advertisement. The unexhausted select list/waiting list becomes meaningless and cannot be pressed in service any more." 23. Coming back to the case in hand we find that not only the vacancies, which were in existence on the date of advertisement, were filled up from the panel in question 13 more additional vacancies were filled up taking into account the vacant promotional posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent keeping those vacant post in abeyance. Thereafter, no vacancy arising on the date of advertisement was in existence and as a result the panel in question seized to exist according to the settled principles of law, as discussed hereinabove. Thereafter, no vacancy arising on the date of advertisement was in existence and as a result the panel in question seized to exist according to the settled principles of law, as discussed hereinabove. The subsequent vacancies should be filled up inviting applications from the open market enabling those candidates to participate in the selection process who fulfilled eligibility criteria during the aforesaid subsequent period otherwise it would be a case of violation of the fundamental right of those candidates under the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 24. It will not be out of context to observe that there may be mistake on the part of the University to fill up 13 vacancies over and above the vacancies which were in existence on the date of advertisement, as discussed hereinabove, but the University should not be allowed to perpetuate such error or mistake by the order of the Court. Or there may be error on the part of the University in adopting a resolution in the 10th meeting (2010-2011) of the Executive Council of University of Burdwan held on December 14, 2010 keeping the panel in question valid for one year from the date of the meeting of the Executive Council but the panel seized to exist after filling of the vacancies which had been in existence on the date of advertisement according to the settled principles of law as discussed hereinabove. 25. It was observed in the impugned judgment that there was no specific rule of the University with regard to the life or duration of a panel and as such the decision of the Council that the panel would be kept alive for a year would hold the field on the issue. Ultimately, it was decided in the impugned judgment that the vacancies arising during the lifetime of the panel would be capable of being filled up from the panel in question for the following reasons:- "(i) The vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant had not been specified in the advertisement dated February 10, 2009. (ii) The Council decided to fill up 13 posts beyond the vacancies which were subsisting on the date the advertisement was published and the decision of offer appointment to those 13 posts was taken on the very date the panel was approved. (ii) The Council decided to fill up 13 posts beyond the vacancies which were subsisting on the date the advertisement was published and the decision of offer appointment to those 13 posts was taken on the very date the panel was approved. (iii) The Executive Council of the University in their subsequent meeting chose to extend the term of the panel. (iv) The decision of the University that for all vacancies occurring after the date of advertisement there ought to have been fresh recruitment process at that stage was irrational and unreasonable in the factual context of the case and was inconsistent such action had been taken in a calculated and conscious manner." 26. Further, though the vacancies for the post in question available on the date of advertisement were not spelt out in that advertisement, that was ascertained by the learned Single Judge, which was 54 in total including the candidates belonging to general category, schedule cast category, schedule tribe category and physically challenged persons. There was no doubt or dispute about the number of vacancies available at the material point of time. So, the ultimate finding of the learned Single Judge that vacancies arising during the lifetime of the panel could be filled up from the panel in question cannot be sustained in law. 27. With regard to the submissions made by Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, it is observed that the anticipated vacancies for a particular period could be taken into account at the time of calculation of vacancies in order to initiate a selection process to fill up the same is a settled principles of law. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case the above settled principles of law has no manner of application in the instant case in view of the discussions made hereinabove. At the cost of repetition it is observed that from the records produced before the learned Single Judge it appeared that the number of vacancies in respect of the post in question on the date of advertisement was 54 in total (inclusive of all categories) and 13 more vacancies were filled up over and above the aforesaid vacancies taking into account the vacant posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Superintendent in abeyance. 28. 28. In view of the above, decisions of Surinder Singh (supra), Prem Singh (supra), Gordhandas Bhanji (supra), Anurag Kumar Singh (supra), Raghava Rajgopalachari (supra) and Gurdev Singh (supra) do not help the respondent/writ petitioners. 29. Since we have arrived at a conclusion that the impugned judgment requires our interference in respect of the direction for considering the cases of the respondents/writ petitioners for appointment in the post in question, the decision of Kohinur Begum (supra) does not help the respondents/writ petitioners in any way. 30. The claim of the appellants in FMA No. 3569 of 2015 is to consider their names for appointment in the post in question. According to them, since their names appeared in the panel above those of the respondents/writ petitioners in FMA No. 2736 of 2015. In view of our conclusion that the panel in question seized to exist after appointment of the empanelled candidates from the panel in question against all the existing vacancies as on the date of advertisement, there is no scope for consideration of their claim for appointment in the post in question. 31. In view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances, the decisions of Purushottam (supra), K.H. Siraj (supra), C. Lalitha (supra) and Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) do not help the above appellants in view of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 32. The claim of the appellant in FMA No. 3570 of 2015 is based on their position in the panel in question. According to them, the names of the petitioners appeared in the panel in question below their names. At the cost of repetition let it be observed that the claim of the above appellants does not deserve further consideration in view of our observation that the panel in question seized to exist after filling up of all vacancies which were in existence on the date of advertisement. 33. The appeal bearing FMA 2736 of 2015 is allowed. 34. In view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. 35. The appeal bearing FMA No. 2736 of 2015 along with application CAN 11089 of 2014 are disposed of accordingly. 36. The appeals bearing FMA No. 3569 of 2015 and FMA No. 3570 of 2015 together with CAN 6261 of 2015 and CAN 6264 of 2015 are dismissed accordingly. 37. 35. The appeal bearing FMA No. 2736 of 2015 along with application CAN 11089 of 2014 are disposed of accordingly. 36. The appeals bearing FMA No. 3569 of 2015 and FMA No. 3570 of 2015 together with CAN 6261 of 2015 and CAN 6264 of 2015 are dismissed accordingly. 37. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 38. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis. Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. : I agree.