Full Judgment
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. In this application the petitioners have, tutor alia prayed for a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to act in terms of the panel as contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application. It is not disputed that the panel was prepared on 9.11.93. The petitioners further in paragraph 9 of the writ application have stated that the said panel has been prepared by the Port Authorities on 9th November, 1993 and the life span of the panel is one year. The petitioners further stated that the lift span of the said panel will expire on 8th November, 1994.
2. Although by an order dated 8th November, 1994, an interim order has been passed restraining the respondents from giving any appointment without leave of this court, keeping in view the admitted position that the life of the panel has since expired, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to Die petitioners.
3 In Madan Lal and Others v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others reported in 1995(2) SLR 209, the Supreme Court observed upon taking into consideration an earlier decision reported in : (1993)2SCC573 , that the appointment depends upon the availability of the vacancies. The list remains valid for one year from the date of Its approval and dale of publication and If within such one year any of the candidates therein is not appointed, the list lapses and a fresh list has to be prepared. To the same effect there is another Judgment of apex court in Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and Otters reported in 1991[5) SLR 624. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further placed before (his Court an unreported judgment of AJit Kumar Sengupla, J., dated 2.7.90 passed in C.R. 13124 (W) of 89, wherein without assigning any reason it has been stated that unless panel is exhausted, all vacancies will be filled up taking the candidates from all the aforesaid categories, numbers being determined on the basis of available vacancies. Apart from the fact that in that case question of lapse of panel by efflux of lime did not arises for consideration. This aspect of the matter has been decided a Division Bench of this court in a decision reported in 1991(1) CLJ 479 has held that the life of the panel is 18 months. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel, further has relied upon a decision reported in 1997(2) CLJ 105 In that decision also a mere observation has been made that there was no Justification of ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The fact of that case cannot be held to be applicable in the instant case.
4. In this view of the matter, this application is dismissed. The interim order is vacated and the respondents are directed to fill up the vacant posts in accordance with law at an early date. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that while considering the cases of eligible candidates, case ofthe petitioners. If they fulfil the crttarla for such appointment, shall also be considered.
There will be no order as to costs.
5. Application dismissed