JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A. No. 5683 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 137 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 137 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 5683 of 2018 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 344 of 2018 5. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna directed against the order/judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4645 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed denying the claim prayed therein for a direction for appointment from a panel prepared in the year 2007. 6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein read hereunder as :- The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, has come out with a decision as contained in Memo No. 5963 dated 30.10.2004 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro directing him to make appointment on Class-IV posts. The concerned Deputy Commissioner prepared a provisional list of candidates and vide order as contained in Memo No. 206 dated 31.05.2005 invited objections from the candidates within a week. The names of the appellants were included in the said provisional list. The concerned Deputy Commissioner then prepared a final list of the candidates which was published vide Memo No. 227 dated 26.04.2007. Further, a decision was taken on 27.09.2007 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to provide details of candidates in the final list of district panel published on 26.04.2007 along with roster clearance so that further step for appointment may be taken up. Further, a decision was taken on 27.09.2007 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to provide details of candidates in the final list of district panel published on 26.04.2007 along with roster clearance so that further step for appointment may be taken up. However, the concerned respondents did not take any action which laid some of the aggrieved candidates to approach to this Court invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing series of writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2008, W.P.(S) No.1132 of 2008, W.P.(S) No. 1731 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No. 2271 of 2008 praying inter alia therein to issue appropriate direction so that the offer of appointment may be issued in terms of the publication of final select list. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2008 by granting liberty to the writ petitioners for filing individual and separate representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and in turn the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara was directed to consider the claim of the appellants and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of four weeks. It is the case of the writ petitioners/appellants that in the final list of candidates their names were published, however, the validity of the said panel was for a period of one year i.e., up to 25.04.2008 which ought to have been revised but having not done so, the appellants preferred writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2008 and analogous cases, which according to the writ petitioners, were within the currency of validity of the district panel. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on 23.12.2008 granting liberty to the individual writ petitioners to represent before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and in compliance thereof, representations were filed which were decided on 07.03.2009 by negating the claim of the writ petitioners. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of on 23.12.2008 granting liberty to the individual writ petitioners to represent before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and in compliance thereof, representations were filed which were decided on 07.03.2009 by negating the claim of the writ petitioners. The order dated 07.03.2009 was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4645 of 2009 which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal, but the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the decision dated 07.03.2009 inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioners are seeking their appointment on the basis of a panel prepared on 26.04.2007 and since the life of the panel exists only for a period of one year, which has already expired on 25.04.2008 and hence, no direction for appointment can be issued with respect to the panel prepared on 26.04.2007, in the year 2018. 7. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that even though the life of the panel was for a period of one year which has expired on 25.04.2008 but the expiry of the panel will not be applicable in the facts of the instant case since the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 911 of 2008] was filed on 19.02.2008 seeking a direction for appointment from the panel of 26.04.2007 which was disposed of on 23.12.2008 and in terms thereof the representations were decided on 07.03.2009 which was challenged in the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4645 of 2009, subject matter of the present intra-court appeal and therefore, the principle of expiry of the panel after lapse of the period of one year will not be applicable since the petitioners have already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court within the validity period of the panel and as such, due to long pendency of the writ petition against the rejection of the claim of the writ petitioners vide order dated 07.03.2009, the appellants cannot be allowed to suffer but the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that two candidates have already been appointed from the same panel and as such, if the petitioners/appellants will not be appointed, it will be a case of hostile discrimination. Learned counsel further submits that two candidates have already been appointed from the same panel and as such, if the petitioners/appellants will not be appointed, it will be a case of hostile discrimination. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj reported in (2000) 3 SCC 699 . 8. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned G.A-V appearing for the respondent State, has defended the order passed by the competent authority on 07.03.2009 as also passed by the learned Single Judge inter alia by submitting that it is incorrect to say that since the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court during subsistence of the validity of the panel, their cases are required to be considered from the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 while the factual aspect is quite different as none of the candidates have ever been appointed from the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 and, therefore, a decision was taken by the competent authority on 07.03.2009 that due to long lapse of time and since the validity of the panel dated 26.04.2007 was for one year which was not renewed any further, therefore, the petitioners/appellants have got no case for seeking appointment from the panel of 26.04.2007. It has further been contended that since none of the candidates has been appointed from the panel of 26.04.2007, therefore, the principle as has been raised about invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of law during subsistence of the validity of the panel by filing writ petition on 19.02.2008 will not be applicable and if the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned decision of the State authority solely on the ground that for the panel prepared in the year 2007 no direction can be issued in the year 2018, i.e., after lapse of about 11 years, it cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. Learned counsel further submits that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that two of the candidates have already been appointed from the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 is also factually incorrect since they have been appointed in the Road Construction Department in pursuance of the direction passed by the Patna High Court in W.P.(S) No.2338 of 1998 and Contempt Case No.977 of 2002 which has got no nexus with the panel provisionally published on 31.05.2005 and finally published on 26.04.2007. Learned State counsel has further agitated the ground that similar order passed in another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 762 of 2009 has already been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 345 of 2018 which has been dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2019. Learned counsel for the State, basis upon the aforesaid submissions, has prayed to dismiss the instant appeal since according to him, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 9. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts in this case before appreciating the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 1731 dated 10.04.2002 sent an intimation to all the Divisional Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners to start the process of selection on all vacant posts in all Departments/Regional Offices/district Collectorates and to send compliance report. In compliance of the aforesaid letter, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara being the Chairman of the District Selection Committee, took step for preparation of district panel of candidates for appointment on the vacant Class-IV post. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 206 dated 31.05.2005 a provisional panel was prepared and on being approved by the District Selection Committee, the final panel was published on 26.04.2007 inviting objections from the candidates in terms of the suggestions advanced on behalf of some of the members of the Establishment Committee as also report was sought for and awaiting for the objections as also the required report, no decision was taken on the final panel. It is also evident that, in the meanwhile, due to lapse of the period of one year and due to non-renewal of the published panel, the decision could not be taken for issuance of offer of appointment to the candidates who were in the said panel. Further, the preparation of the panel has been found to be contrary to the decision of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha vide Memo No.3/R-1-103/73-16441 dated 03.12.1980. The case of the writ petitioners as has been made out before the learned Single Judge by questioning the decision of the authority dated 07.03.2009 by which the prayer for issuance of appointment letter on the basis of the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 could not be taken, hence, the prayer for issuance of appointment order has been rejected. The writ petitioners have also raised the question about lapse of the panel which is about the principle of not acting on the panel after lapse of the period of one year on the ground that if any litigation has been filed before any competent court of law during subsistence of the panel, the aforesaid principle will not be applicable as according to the writ petitioners, the case herein, since the writ petitioners had filed writ petition on 19.02.2008 for a direction to act upon on the basis of the panel dated 26.04.2007. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2008 giving liberty to the writ petitioners to file a representation before the competent authority. The writ petitioners filed representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara which was decided on 07.03.2009 negating the claim of the writ petitioners against which a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4645 of 2009 was filed which was disposed of on 17.01.2018 and hence, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants, the principle of expiry of the panel will not be applicable herein. While on the other hand, the learned State counsel has agitated the ground that the aforesaid principle is not in dispute but the same is to be tested on the basis of the facts and circumstances involved in each case since according to the learned State counsel, the panel dated 26.04.2007 has not been implemented due to one reason or the other and in the meanwhile, the period of one year has already lapsed, having not been renewed and therefore, there is no question to provide appointment to the writ petitioners/appellants. 10. This Court deems it fit and proper to first answer the issue about applicability of the principle of pendency of the litigation with respect to a panel during the currency period of the aforesaid panel for which reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra). It is not in dispute that the principle of expiry of the panel will not affect such litigants who has approached before the court of law during the currency period of the panel but it is equally settled that each and every case is to be tested on the basis of facts and circumstances involving the case, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 at paragraph 47 which is quoted hereunder as :- “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.” Herein, since the fact about non-issuance of appointment letter in pursuance of the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 has not been disputed as also it is the specific case of the State respondents that due to the non-observance of the decision of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department as contained in Circular No.3/R-1-103/73-16441 dated 03.12.1980, the panel is to be prepared by referring the Employment Registration Number. The decision upon implementation of the final panel has been kept pending waiting for objection from one or the other candidates and report called for vide letter No. 486 dated 23.10.2007 and reminder as contained in letter No. 192 dated 16.04.2008 which was not received and in the meanwhile, due to expiry of the period of one year and since the life of the panel has not been renewed, there is no question of acting upon on the said panel by issuing offer of appointment in favour of one or the other candidates. The fact about the expiry of the period of one year and not acting upon on the basis of the panel prepared on 26.04.2007 has not been disputed by the writ petitioners/appellants save and except the ground of appointment of two candidates, which according to the writ petitioners/appellants, is from the same panel. So far as the appointment of two candidates from the same panel is concerned, we have found from the material available on record that two candidates were selected for appointment by the Establishment Committee in pursuance of the direction passed by the Patna High Court in W.P.(S) No.2338 of 1998 and Contempt Case No.977 of 2002 which has got no nexus with the panel dated 26.04.2007. It also requires to answer about the applicability of the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra), which according to our considered view is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is evident from the factual aspect involved in the said case wherein the select list was finalized in the month of November, 1996 and the writ petition was filed in the month of October, 1997 i.e., just before the expiry of one year from the date of select list and in that circumstances, the issue has been answered about non-applicability of the expiry of the panel after lapse of the period of one year but herein the factual aspect is quite different since the panel has not been acted upon because the final decision upon the panel kept pending and in the meanwhile due to expiry of period of one year and since the period of panel was not renewed, as such, the panel has not been acted upon. It is not a case of acting on the basis of final publication of panel, rather no decision has been taken upon the final publication of panel due to the reason that after lapse of one year the force of the panel was not renewed and the condition as contained in Circular No.3/R-1-103/73-16441 dated 03.12.1980 issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department was not observed which ought to have been observed mandatorily and as such, the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra) is not applicable in this case. It also requires to refer herein that there will be no justification to provide appointment in the year 2018 from the panel prepared in the year 2007, it is for the reason that from the year 2007 till 2018 if the same panel would be allowed to be continued, the candidates who have, in the meanwhile, became eligible to be considered for appointment, will be deprived from such opportunity which will ultimately hit the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute about the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Jagdish Chopra reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 and in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561 that the life of the panel is only for a period of one year. Even in absence of any rule, the panel will exist for a period of one year only. Further, we have also gone across the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 345 of 2018 disposed of on 16.10.2019 wherein dealing with the same issues as also about applicability of the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup Saroj (Supra), the order passed by the writ court in W.P.(S) No. 762 of 2009 has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the appeal. 11. In view of the reasons assigned herein as also considering the order passed in L.P.A. No. 345 of 2018 dated 16.10.2019 arising out of the same panel, we are of the considered view that the appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.