JUDGMENT : 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P. 10623 (W) of 2003 is in appeal before us impugning the judgment and order dated 26th March 2009 passed by a learned Judge of this Court. It appears on perusal of such judgment and order that the grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner (hereafter the writ petitioner) was spurned on the ground that the panel in question wherein the writ petitioner was empanelled, ceased to exist on the date the writ petition was presented i.e. 14th July, 2003. 2. The writ petitioner was an aspirant for appointment on the post of assistant teacher in Philosophy in schools within the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission (Southern Region) [hereafter the regional commission]. Alleging nepotism in the matter of preparation of panel, the writ petitioner along with 12(twelve) other candidates had approached a learned single Judge of this Court with a writ petition, W.P. 19441(W) of 1999, on 24th November, 1999. Such writ petition was considered by several learned Judges of this Court on merits. However, by an order dated 3rd July, 2003, the writ petition was dismissed by a learned Judge on the ground that all the petitioners could not have joined in a single writ petition having participated in the process of selection for appointment as assistant teachers in different subjects. However, liberty was reserved to each of the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition. It is pursuant to such liberty that the writ petition, out of which the appeal arises, was presented. 3. As has been noted above, the learned Judge by the judgement and order dated 26th March, 2009 proceeded to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground of expiry of the panel by the time the writ petition came to be presented. We are now called upon to examine whether the writ petition did in fact deserve dismissal on such ground. 4. While so examining, we had on an earlier occasion called for the records of W.P. 19441(W) of 1999. It appears from the orders dated 27th March, 2000 and 18th April, 2000 passed thereon that the Court wished to examine the allegations made by the petitioners in depth and that the petitioners had prima facie substantiated their allegations of manipulation by the regional commission. It appears from the orders dated 27th March, 2000 and 18th April, 2000 passed thereon that the Court wished to examine the allegations made by the petitioners in depth and that the petitioners had prima facie substantiated their allegations of manipulation by the regional commission. It also appears from an order dated 16th May, 2000 that the regional commission was directed by the Court to publish the panel in course of three weeks from that date. 5. In paragraph 4 of W.P.10623 (W) of 2003, the writ petitioner pleaded as follows : “(4) That, the petitioner earlier moved a writ application being W.P. No.19441 (W) of 1999, challenging the non publication of the panel and as per order of the Hon’ble Justice Barin Ghosh, the School Service Commission authorities published the panel and upon perusing such panel the petitioner came to know that his position in the panel is 14 and already who have obtained the less marks than the petitioner have been recommended for appointment by the School Service Commission.” 6. Paragraph 4 (supra) was dealt with by the regional commission in paragraph 4 of its affidavit-in-opposition. We have not found any statement therein to the effect that whatever the writ petitioner pleaded in paragraph 4 of the writ petition was incorrect. 7. We, however, did not seek to rest our conclusion only on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and hence called upon Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the regional commission to produce the panel before us. In compliance with such direction, he produced two so-called panels, one containing the names of Male (General) candidates and the other names of Female (General) candidates. Curiously, the said panels appeared to have been signed by a gentleman whose identity is not discernible from such panels. The said gentleman has also not given the date on which he actually signed the panels. 8. Rule 8 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers including Headmasters/Headmistress/ Superintendents of Senior Madrasahs in recognised Non-Government Aided Schools and Procedure for Conduct of Business of the Commission) Regulations, 1998 were the relevant regulations in force at the time of commencement of the selection process in which the writ petitioner had participated. Regulation 8 being important for the purpose of a decision in this appeal, is quoted below : “8. Regulation 8 being important for the purpose of a decision in this appeal, is quoted below : “8. Preparation of panel for candidates (1) On the basis of the written examination, academic scoring and personality test, all added together, each Regional Commission shall, for each subject, prepare final merit list, that is to say, a panel of candidates found fit for appointment, strictly in order of merit. Each such panel shall include names one and half times the number of the vacancies referred to in regulation 3. There may be different/separate/Subject-wise/language-wise/ sex-wise/category-wise sets of panels as may be necessary, based on academic qualifications, for the Higher Secondary, Secondary and Madrasah as may be decided by the Central Commission. (2) Each panel prepared shall remain valid for one year from the date of approval of the panel by the Regional Commission for the posts which have already been reported and which will be reported upto one year next from the date of publication of the list of interviewees. If the Central Commission thinks it expedient to extend the validity of the panel beyond its normal period for any reasonable cause, the validity of any such panels shall be extended for a further period of one year, that is to say, the time of validity of the panel shall, in no circumstances, be more than two years.” 9. Regulation 8(1) emphasizes on the need to prepare a panel of candidates found fit for appointment, strictly in order of merit. Such provision also enables preparation of sex-wise panel, if necessary. Regulation 8(2) refers to the validity period of panel and ordains that a panel shall, unless extended, remain valid for one year from the date of approval of the panel by the Regional Commission. (underlining for emphasis by us) 10. We called upon Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya to place before us the resolution of the regional commission approving the panels. No such resolution could be produced. It therefore stands to reason that the contention of the regional commission before the learned Judge that the panel expired on 2nd November, 1999 was advanced without reference to the relevant records/resolution maintained by the regional commission. There being no panel duly approved by the regional commission on 2nd November, 1998 (at least no such panel has been placed before us), there was no question of the panel expiring on 2nd November, 1999. There being no panel duly approved by the regional commission on 2nd November, 1998 (at least no such panel has been placed before us), there was no question of the panel expiring on 2nd November, 1999. The panel was published post-16th May, 2000 i.e. the date on which a learned Judge of this Court while hearing W.P. 19441 (W) of 1999 made the order for its publication. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that the learned Judge while accepting the said contention of the regional commission of the panel having expired on 2nd November, 1998 did not appreciate the issue arising for decision in the proper perspective and acted wholly erroneously. 11. Having reached a conclusion that the panel was published not before 16th May, 2000, we now proceed to examine as to whether the writ petitioner by presenting W.P. 10623 (W) of 2003 on 14th July, 2003 could be denied relief on the ground of belated approach. 12. Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya has argued that since all the advertised vacancies have been filled up and the panel had expired on the date W.P. 10623 (W) of 2003 was presented, there is hardly any scope to grant the writ petitioner relief. 13. As has been noted above, the writ petitioner along with 12 (twelve) others had approached the Court on 24th November, 1999 by presenting W.P.19441 (W) of 1999 even before publication of the panel. It was in pursuance of the order dated 16th May, 2000 that the panel may have been published. If indeed the Court at that stage had declined relief to the petitioners in W.P. 19441 (W) of 1999 on the ground that a joint application is not maintainable, for, it was filed by 12 (twelve) petitioners who were aspirants for appointment in different subjects, the writ petitioner could have approached the Court within a year of publication of the panel and have her grievance heard and considered in accordance with law. However, it took the Court time till 3rd July, 2003 to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Law is well settled that no party should be harmed for an act of Court : actus curiae neminem gravabit. Within a fortnight from dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the writ petitioner knocked the doors of the Court once again seeking judicial intervention. 14. Law is well settled that no party should be harmed for an act of Court : actus curiae neminem gravabit. Within a fortnight from dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the writ petitioner knocked the doors of the Court once again seeking judicial intervention. 14. We may draw inspiration here from the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 3 SCC 699 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj) where the panel expired during the pendency of a legal proceeding. Such expiry was held not to operate to the detriment of the candidate. For all practical purposes and intents, legal proceedings were pending except between 3rd July, 2003 and 14th July, 2003 when W.P. 10623 (W) of 2003 came to be presented after dismissal of W.P. 19441 (W) of 1999. For the reasons spelt out in the proceeding paragraph, the subsequent proceeding must be treated to be one in continuation of the earlier proceeding. Expiry of the panel in course of the first proceeding, therefore, cannot stand in the way of grant of relief to the writ petitioner. 15. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to hold that the writ petitioner’s approach was so belated that she should be declined relief on this ground. 16. Now turning to the merits of the matter, we find the grievance of the writ petitioner to be fully justified. Although she had acquired more marks than a number of male candidates, she was not recommended for appointment by the regional commission without any plausible reason and on the contrary, certain male candidates who had secured less marks than her were recommended and ultimately offered appointment. Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya has sought to argue that the position regarding recommendation being made in favour of female candidates for appointment in boys’ schools was not certain at that point of time and that could be a reason as to why the writ petitioner was not recommended for appointment despite male candidates securing less marks than her being recommended for appointment in boys’ schools. He has referred to a clarificatory circular issued by the Officer-on- Special Duty and ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the School Education Department, Secondary Branch, dated 3rd May, 2007 in support of such contention. 17. Reacting to such submission of Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, Mr. He has referred to a clarificatory circular issued by the Officer-on- Special Duty and ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the School Education Department, Secondary Branch, dated 3rd May, 2007 in support of such contention. 17. Reacting to such submission of Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has invited our attention to the contents of paragraph 29 of the writ petition. There, it was pleaded that one Smt. Surekha Nag, a female (General) candidate, aspiring for appointment on the post of assistant teacher in Geography was duly recommended for appointment and ultimately appointed in Naktala High School for Boys, Kolkata-700047. Paragraph 29 of the writ petition has been dealt with by the regional commission in its affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 12. There is no denial of the aforesaid statement of the writ petitioner. 18. On consideration of the above and also drawing from our experience on the Bench that there has never been any bar in regard to appointment of a female candidate as a teacher in a boys’ school, we are inclined to hold that the contention advanced by Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya, as noted above, is one in desperation and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. By depriving the writ petitioner of a recommendation for appointment in boys’ schools where vacancies were available, the writ petitioner indeed has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 19. At this juncture, to resist the writ petitioner’s claim at any cost, Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya submits that there were other female candidates who had secured more marks than the writ petitioner and considering the writ petitioner’s claim in preference to the claims of such other female candidates, who had secured more marks than her, would result in discrimination qua such female candidates. 20. We are afraid this contention has also not impressed us at all. It could be true that there were other female candidates, who had secured more marks than the writ petitioner, but were similarly denied recommendations. However, sight cannot be lost of the fact that such female candidates did not enforce their rights seeking legal remedy. If such candidates have slept over their rights or have relinquished their claims knowingly, the writ petitioner, who has approached the Court at the appropriate time, cannot be denied relief on the ground so advanced. However, sight cannot be lost of the fact that such female candidates did not enforce their rights seeking legal remedy. If such candidates have slept over their rights or have relinquished their claims knowingly, the writ petitioner, who has approached the Court at the appropriate time, cannot be denied relief on the ground so advanced. One who has been vigilant cannot be made to suffer because others, similarly discriminated against, may have accepted their fate. 21. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to allow the appeal. The judgment and order of the learned Judge stands set aside. The Chairperson of the regional commission shall proceed to recommend the writ petitioner for appointment on a post of assistant teacher for which she was an aspirant, notwithstanding the fact that the panel may have expired in the meanwhile. Let this order be complied with as early as possible but not later than a month from the date of its receipt. 22. Since the writ petitioner was entitled to be recommended for appointment in the year 1999 but for no fault on her part she has not been able to discharge duty for the last 18 years, consequent whereto she has also been deprived of financial benefits that could have accrued in her favour, we would exercise discretion by giving her the benefit of discharging duty in a school in Kolkata and, therefore, we further direct the Chairperson of the regional commission to recommend her in an appropriate vacancy in a school within a radius of 10 kilometers of her residence. 23. In the event the regional commission is unable to comply with this order for want of an immediate vacancy, it shall recommend the petitioner no sooner than a vacancy arising in any school within 10 kilometers radius of her residence. The writ petitioner is given liberty to obtain appropriate information by exercising her right under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and if there be any such vacancy where she can be appointed, which is reported to the regional commission by her, the Chairperson shall proceed to examine the authenticity of the writ petitioner’s claim and do the needful without wasting any further time. 24. Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya prays for stay. 24. Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya prays for stay. We find no reason to stay the operation of the order since we have granted a month’s time to the regional commission to comply with the same. 25. The original panels which Mr. Saugata Bhattacharya had produced before this Court is/are returned to him. However, the Assistant Court Officer shall make a photocopy thereof and retain the same with the records. 26. The appeal stands allowed, without costs. 27. The records of W.P. 19441 (W) of 1999 and W.P. 10623 (W) of 2003 shall be detagged and set to the department at once.