JUDGMENT : The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1550 of 2016, whereby and whereunder direction upon the appellant no.-1-Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi or the officer authorized by him, has been given to do the needful for appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent. 2. Before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order/judgment, certain facts are required to be referred which read hereunder as : The Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board, in short 'JCECEB', has published an advertisement, being Advertisement No. 18 dated 07.07.2009 inviting applications for fulfilling different categories of posts, total 504 in number, in different Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) situated within the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner-respondent no.-1, being I.T.I. in electrician trade and belonging to the General category applied for the post of 'Electrician Instructor, for which, under General Category there was total 21 seats. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and other candidates appeared in the examination, in which, he was found to be successful and accordingly his name was figured at serial no. 28 under the heading "Posts - Electrician -Merit List". 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner-respondent is that though the position of the writ petitioner-respondent was figured at serial no. 28 in the merit list but the vacancy, under the unreserved category, in which, the writ petitioner-respondent falls, remained vacant in spite of that fact that the writ petitioner-respondent has not been selected leaving the seats vacant, which has compelled the writ petitioner-respondent to approach this Court by filing W.P. (S) N0. 1550 of 2016. 4. In the writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 1550 of 2016, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-State of Jharkhand stating inter alia that appointments have been made to those candidates who have been found successful in counseling but the writ petitioner-respondent has never appeared in counseling, therefore, his case had not been considered. Further ground has been agitated that the writ petitioner-respondent has approached this Court in the year 2016 but life of the panel for appointment on the said post was only one year, hence the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be offered appointment. 5. Further ground has been agitated that the writ petitioner-respondent has approached this Court in the year 2016 but life of the panel for appointment on the said post was only one year, hence the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be offered appointment. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciating the rival stands taken by the parties has passed the order, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State of Jharkhand assailed the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the force of subsistence of panel since according to the appellants-State of Jharkhand, the advertisement is of the year 2009 and in pursuant thereto, the counseling has been decided to be conducted in the year 2010 of 21 candidates who have been found to be successful in the competitive examination, accordingly the suitable candidates were appointed. It has further been submitted that so far as remaining 9 posts are concerned since the writ petitioner-respondent has never been called upon to participate in counseling, therefore, there is no question of consideration of case of the petitioner for appointment. Further stand has been taken that by now the considerable period of time has lapsed, therefore, from the panel prepared in the year 2010 no appointment can be made for the reason that panel subsists only for one year and contrary to that the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be appointed. 7. Per contra, writ petitioner-respondent has submitted that it is not correct to say that no appointment has been made after lapse of period of one year rather in the year 2014, appointments have been made, though after order being passed by this Court. But, there is no denial of the fact that appointment has been made from the said panel in the year 2014, hence plea of lapse of panel is not sustainable. It has further been submitted that the advertisement provides the mode of selection and appointment and it is to be made on the basis of merit list prepared and assessment of one or the other candidates on the basis of written test. It has further been submitted that the advertisement provides the mode of selection and appointment and it is to be made on the basis of merit list prepared and assessment of one or the other candidates on the basis of written test. It has further been stipulated in the advertisement that from the merit list, candidates will be called for the counseling and even accepting the decision for counseling has been taken by respondents-authorities, it is not correct to say on the part of the authority to only call upon 21 candidates for counseling as because counseling always means screening of documents and other relevant things. Herein, the merit list has already been prepared, in which, the name of the writ petitioner-respondent appeared in cumulative list at serial no. 28 but under General Category at serial no. 19, therefore, if the case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand would be taken to be true then also calling upon only 21 candidates for counseling cannot be said to be proper since if amongst them some of the candidates would not be selected, for one or other reason(s), it was incumbent upon the authority to call upon the other candidates in the second round of counseling so that the vacancies may be filled up as per the advertisements, but, having not done so, serious irregularities have been committed. As such, the learned Single Judge considering this aspect of the matter has rightly passed the order, which require no interference by this Court. 8. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions advanced by the parties, deem it fit and proper to go through the advertisement, basing upon which the entire selection process has been made, from which, it is evident that applications were invited for filling up of different posts, including the post of 'Electrician Instructor' for which the writ petitioner-respondent applied, on the basis of assessment of performance of one or the other candidates, i.e. competitive examination (objective type) and minimum qualifying marks have been stipulated for different categories, for example, for General Category -40 %, Backward Class -36.5 %, Extremely Backward Class -34 % and for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Women 32%. It is further evident from the said advertisement that appointment has been decided to be made strictly on the basis of merit list, basing upon the performance of the candidates on the basis of result/performance in the competitive examination. 9. The admitted case of the parties is that the writ petitioner-respondent had participated in the process of selection under General Category, coming under unreserved category, and after going through the selection process, he was found successful and his name finds figure at serial no. 28 under the heading "Posts -Electrician-Merit List". It is further admitted case that in order to fulfill 21 vacancies of "Electrician Instructor", falling under unreserved category, only 21 candidates were called for participation in the counseling and out of them only 12 candidates were selected, as such 09 vacancies remain vacant. 10. This Court, on the basis of arguments advanced on behalf of parties and the materials available on record, first deem it fit and proper to answer the issue: As to whether the appellants-authorities can be allowed to departure from the mode of selection, which is not available in the advertisement, which has been questioned in the instant case by calling upon the candidates for selection by conducting counseling of only 21 candidates? 11. It is settled position of law that the process of selection once initiated, its process cannot be allowed to be changed. However, change can be made depending upon the situation, hence, this Court is now proceeding to assess: As to whether decision of counseling for final selection of the one or the other candidates, as has been done in the instant case can be said to be justified in absence of any condition in the advertisement? 12. Admittedly, herein the name of the writ petitioner-respondent figured at serial no. 12. Admittedly, herein the name of the writ petitioner-respondent figured at serial no. 28 under General Category and since only 21 candidates were called for to participate in the counseling, therefore, the writ petitioner was not called upon to participate in the counseling, out of which, only 12 candidates were finally selected, but as per the settled position of law if the candidates were available by virtue of their performance in the competitive examination the seats were required to be filled up by the authority but herein 9 seats have fallen vacant, for which, reason has been explained by the State authorities that since 21 candidates have been called upon and out of them only 12 candidates were selected as such 9 seats remained vacant. In the advertisement mode of selection is based upon qualifying marks and further the name of writ petitioner-respondent under general category was at serial no. 19. On the simple inclusion, the name of the writ petitioner-respondent ought to have figured in the list of successful candidates as because out of total 21 vacancies 9 posts had never been filled up under the general category, as would appear from the merit list. 13. But the fact remains herein is that only 12 posts have been filled up leaving 9 posts vacant, reason as per the State is that in the counseling only 21 candidates have been called up. 14. The question herein is that why only 21 candidates have been called for counseling, if the selection has been decided to be based upon counseling, which according to us is a wrong process adopted by the State-authorities, it is for the reason that if the decision of the authorities for calling upon the candidates for counseling is accepted to be correct then also it was the duty of the State-authorities to call upon the other candidates in the second round of counseling to fill up the remaining unfilled vacancies but that exercise has not been adopted. It further appears from the affidavit filed by the State-authorities that further counseling could not have been conducted due to procedural delay but the question herein is that when the process itself is not correct and if the delay has been caused in conducting second round counseling attributable to the State-authorities the candidates should not be allowed to suffer by taking a plea that the panel has lost its force. 15. 15. It further appears from the record that it is admitted case that some candidates have also been appointed in the year 2014, the reason has been explained by the State-authorities that appointments have been made by virtue of order passed by this Court, but this reason cannot be said to be justified as because even accepting the Court of law has passed an order, it is always open for the aggrieved party, here the State-authorities to assail the said order before higher forum but herein they have accepted it and not challenged the order passed by this Court, by which, some candidates have been appointed in the year 2014 after lapse of one year of panel, therefore, such submission is not acceptable for the reason that the appointments have been made stretching the period of panel for the period of three years. 16. It also requires to refer herein the difference in between the word 'panel' to the 'merit list'. A list of the candidates will be said to be a panel, if the entire vacancies, as has been advertised in the advertisement, is filled up and thereafter keeping name of some candidates in the panel in order to fill up the post in the case of eventualities like that of non-joining of post or in exigency within a period of one year, but herein the fact of the case is that remaining nine vacancies of the post in question has not been filled up, therefore, it cannot be said to be that the name of the petitioner appears in the panel rather it is a case where the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list under general category candidates. In view thereof also, the argument which has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-State of Jharkhand about losing of force of panel after one year will not be applicable. 17. This Court, having regard to aforesaid discussions, and after going through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has committed no illegality in passing such direction and the appellants have been unable to raise any good ground warranting interference. 18. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 19. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 10716 of 2018 also stands dismissed.